Crowley as a Christian Beast
jonagnar
"Why did actually Crowley keep on building on the Christian legends by
identifying himself with The Beast of the Revelation, if he didn't regard
them as worthy any attention?"
Though my interest in the esoteric field, I haven't studied Crowley very
thoroughly myself Any Thelemites out there interested in helping me out?
-Nikolai
Frater ABZU
Christian in what way? Do you mean Christian in the way fundies interpret the
666 implantations on the hand and forehead, providing the individual with loads
of shopping fun, or do you mean Christian in the sense of John being a
plageristic rip-off artist of earlier mythologies (this is a little cruel to
John, please note that he synthesized all this stuff quite well, regardless of
his agenda). Yes, revelations have to begin somewhere. Crowley considered
himself the Beast described in Revelation, and then some. However, this began
with his mother who called her Bible quoting son this. It personally resonated
with him, even up to the reception of The Book of the Law, where he took the
Hebrew name of Beast, ChIOA. Nonetheless, for Crowley, The Book of the Law
confirmed what he thought all along. One may note that the Beast is also
paired with the Scarlet Woman in The Book of the Law, as in the Book of
Revelation; this sort of thing is what theology calls progressive revelation.
Nonetheless, one could argue that the concept of the Beast and the Scarlet
Woman goes back to ancient Sumerum (or prehistoric), where Inana the goddess of
prostitution, rides upon her Lion Beast. However, to cease from sounding like
Grant, I will at least mention that one could argue that since the word "obeah"
is in The Book of the Law, that it is African. Eventually, we reach the shores
of silliness, and this also applies to Crowley, who was his own Beast. Not
Christian, African, Sumerumian, etc.
I's thinks this sounds nice.
Love is the law, love under will
Frater ABZU
"34.Llm.S ltewarlonwolatawoSl\t Tsbiagaer.rel eoan
neil
jona...@telepost.no (jonagnar) wrote:
>"Why did actually Crowley keep on building on the Christian legends by
>identifying himself with The Beast of the Revelation,
During his early childhood Crowley's mother refered to him as the beast, as
he was a 'naughty boy' rebelling against his parents' extreme Christian
beliefs (Plymouth Bretheren).
Since he never grew out of his rebellious nature, he retained the 'beast'
label, relating it to the Christian beast probably just to irritate his
parents as much as possible.
neil...
Bill Heidrick
>In a discution concerning Aleister Crowley is was asked the following:
>"Why did actually Crowley keep on building on the Christian legends by
>identifying himself with The Beast of the Revelation, if he didn't regard
>them as worthy any attention?"
He was raised a Christian. You talk about what you know. You also never
completely escape the religion and behavior of your childhood -- but you
can subject it to an alchemical process and try to make gold from lead.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
Nikolai
Hmm....
-Nikolai
Nikolai
>
>In article <4garpu$q...@nms.telepost.no>,
>jona...@telepost.no (jonagnar) wrote:
>
>
>>identifying himself with The Beast of the Revelation,
>
>he was a 'naughty boy' rebelling against his parents' extreme Christian
>beliefs (Plymouth Bretheren).
>
>Since he never grew out of his rebellious nature, he retained the 'beast'
>label, relating it to the Christian beast probably just to irritate his
>parents as much as possible.
>
>neil...
>
>
is said to be 666? There are also several peculiar gematrial connections
in this number.
In addition the "Book of the Law" actually itself use revelation
symbolology. "The scarlet woman" etc.
Did Crowley consciously or unconsciously add this himself to irritate
his parrents as much as possible?
How do Neil himself regard the Christian Revelation in a Book of the Law-
perspective. Does he regard it at all in such perspective?
Other comments?
azt...@primenet.com
Crowley viewed the book of Revelation as a (corrupt, in the sense of
being slanted toward Xtianity) vision of events to occur, not at the
"end of the world" , but at the commencement of the next Aeon 2k years
hence (ie, now), and the termination of the Aeon of Osiris. Since he
was/considered himself to be (take your pick) the Prophet of the Aeon
of Horus, he identified with the allegory of the Beast of Revelation
and picked up on various clues from the circumstances of events in his
personal life that confirmed this.
It must be kept in mind that the concept of aeonic progression is
central to Thelemic philosophy. See also The Book of the Law, chapter
III, verse 34.
93 93/93
Joe
Rev. James Foster
>
> Hmm....
>
> -Nikolai
You quoted ABZU's *entire* post for THIS little gem of wisdom?! What the
hell is wrong with this person???
Paul Hume
One thought I'd toss in is that "John" who wrote Revelation perceived
an aspect of reality, call it the Beast, which he interpreted as a bad thing -
but the signatures of this aspect, the Therion symbolism and the
Solar power of the 666 numerology, are accurate. Crowley interpreted then in a
different light, however.
Another hypothesis - John foresaw the change of Aeons, but from his
perspective, these forces, individuals, and officers - Beast, Babalon, et al -
who arose to lead humanity into a new view of life seemed quite evil indeed -
as one would expect when the visionary has dedicated his own life to the
message, good in its time, which the figures in his vision are
superseding/amending/etc. at the end of its lifetime.
These are all personal musings I've come up with on the same theme.
93.
Paul
Robert J. Maiolo
93
>jona...@telepost.no (jonagnar) writes:
>>In a discution concerning Aleister Crowley is was asked the following:
>>"Why did actually Crowley keep on building on the Christian legends by
>>identifying himself with The Beast of the Revelation, if he didn't regard
>>them as worthy any attention?"
To properly change over and complete the formula of Christianity, he
took on this role to signal its end and the beginning of the Aeon of
Horus.
93 93/93
PFDV
sv
Paul...@f235.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Paul Hume) said:-
There are other conculsions that can be reached. One of these is that Crowley
carefully crafted his symbolism to reflect similarities with other symbol
systems. One of the problems with 'new' proposals like the precession of the
aeons is that one cannot be sure to what extent the vision or perception of
the proposal has been influenced by the teaching that the proposer has already
been exposed to. This must undermine the 'newness' of the proposal.
For what it is worth, there must be a considerable suspicion that Crowley
could not contemplate that his life was not the herald of something momentous.
Such was his psychology that he needed to think this to counteract the low
esteem in which he was held with all except his own acolytes and followers.
In order to do demonstrate this, he did two things; firstly he presented
himself as the prophet or herald of the new age, thereby exalting himself to a
status which befitted his self-image. So that the new age should be nothing as
humdrum or conventional as the dawn of Aquarius which conventional astrology
would propose (the timing of this in relation to his life would also have been
inconvenient for him I imagine), it was also necessary to present a completely
new system of cosmology in order to demonstrate the true cosmic significance
of the fact of his birth.
The man had serious problems.
I am frankly sceptical of the usefulness of the whole thelemic proposal. I see
nothing of benefit in it except perhaps the restating of the concept of the
Higher Will in different terms, and even that had been done better before.
I am not trying to demean Crowleyites or Thelemites, I would be happy to see
any comment which might demonstrate something innately new or different about
Crowley and his teaching. So far as I can see there is nothing new or
particularly amazing in it. I think the whole OTO/93 thing has been expanded
well beyond the limits of it's merit or potential.
__
sv
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
olc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
neil
jona...@telepost.no (Nikolai) wrote:
>...666? There are also several peculiar gematrial connections
>in this number.
Some call it synchronicity, that's all.
>
>In addition the "Book of the Law" actually itself use revelation
>symbolology. "The scarlet woman" etc.
Crowley's scarlet women were his mistresses and also the prostitutes he
used for various sex magick experiments.
>Did Crowley consciously or unconsciously add this himself to irritate
>his parrents as much as possible?
He was using this term well before the creation of the Book of the Law.
He used it to irritate everybody else.
You must remember that AC was, for much of his life, obsessed with
upsetting and insulting people. Unfortunately too many people these days
take his work and his words far too literally.
He had (has) a great deal to offer anyone studying magick, but it must
*always* be filtered through a knowledge of his psychology and his
personality. A cynical attitude to his original motives will reveal the
gems and get rid of all the bullshit.
>How do Neil himself regard the Christian Revelation in a Book of the Law-
>perspective. Does he regard it at all in such perspective?
>
I regard the Book of the Law as the desperate work of a lonely and
incomplete man desperate for some attention and just a touch of
immortality.
I regard the Christian Revelation as a mildly interesting talking point
should the conversation die down at dinner. (I normally start the subject
going then disappear to make the coffe. Religious discussions are great
entertainment).
neil...
Covert
: There are other conculsions that can be reached. One of these is that Crowley
My impression of Crowley, was that he was an excellent
synthesist, who could take many different systems, and find the
commonalities between them. Any consistant system of magick will work
for some, and there are enough, that there should be one for anybody.
What I'm curious about, is your belief system. I've watched you slag
almost everyone who posts here, and you have negative comments on most of
the standard traditions. What do you like? Do you think anyone's work
is of value? I'm trying not to make this anything like a flame, since
that sort of thing just escalates. But my curiosity is aroused.
Kjetil Fjell
sv wrote:
[Much snipped]
>The man had serious problems.
93!
I guess this is what they call quasi-psychology. That is handing out
seemingly easy analyzes that may sound like they are rooted in
psychology, without having any firm foundation in it.
Take care.
93
93/93.
Kjetil
Kjetil Fjell
sv
kfj...@james.avh.unit.no "Kjetil Fjell" writes:
] s...@mbha.demon.co.uk (sv) wrote:
] sv wrote:
] >The man had serious problems.
] I guess this is what they call quasi-psychology. That is handing out
] seemingly easy analyzes that may sound like they are rooted in
] psychology, without having any firm foundation in it.
]
] Take care.
Hmmm. OK. How about: In my estimation (based on his behaviour as described in
books about his life), the man had serious problems... :-)
I don't have to be an expert biologist to know a duck is a duck. I just
have to hear it quack.
--
sv
sv
cov...@Capital.Net (Covert) said:-
> My impression of Crowley, was that he was an excellent
>synthesist, who could take many different systems, and find the
>commonalities between them. Any consistant system of magick will work
>for some, and there are enough, that there should be one for anybody.
>What I'm curious about, is your belief system. I've watched you slag
>almost everyone who posts here, and you have negative comments on most of
>the standard traditions. What do you like? Do you think anyone's work
>is of value? I'm trying not to make this anything like a flame, since
>that sort of thing just escalates. But my curiosity is aroused.
Fair enough. Sensible questions sensibly put.
I don't believe I have slagged anybody off as you put it, but after a number
of years in serious High Magic, I have seen more than most of good occultists
and bad. I do not think that any serious occultist is doing themselves or
others any favours by pandering to the dilletantes and charlatans among us.
And there are some among us - as the debate over shuddering or trembling or
whatever clearly shows.
It seems to be the way of things these days that you can get up to the most
appalling nonsense and justify it by quoting this 'expert' or that 'expert' in
the quest for ever more obscure and trendy 'new' techniques. I offered some
time ago to deliver some really obscure parts of the ceremonial of the
Australian Aboriginal, and I was being only slightly ironical because it
really does seem that the dilletante lunatics are now running the asylum. They
are normally the ones who engage in decibel debate. You wouldn't believe some
of the private email I've had from one or two of them (especially the OGDOS
lot) - some of it has been only barely literate.
An attribute which distinguishes the initiate from the dilletante is the
ability to be clinically objective. For example - I have no liking for Crowley
or his brand of Magic. I believe it to be unsubtle and unsophisticated. The
man himself was, in my view, a deviant who delighted in being obnoxious at
every opportunity. He had a remarkable ego and died dissolute and corrupt of
body and mind. For right or wrong (and I believe that there is a body of
evidence to support it), this is my view, based on the best education in the
matter I can get.
That I should think such a thing will be offensive to some people, and it is
the various reactions which I am testing. Which people will say (as I do from
time to time) that this is not their view but they can understand it being
mine. Which people go frothy at the mouth and start with personal abuse. It
seems to me that you are one of the former, and I can sense the quality of the
approach which underlies your post. However we have both seen too many of the
others.
Interestingly enough, for every person defending their positions by abusing
me, there have been other posts and emails agreeing with what I have been
saying. Which is nice.
Now to the plagiarism I have mentioned. The first degree of Freemasonry (The
Entered Apprentice Degree) has the initiate deprived of all metals and
valuables and clothed in a particular simple garb. He is then asked by the
chaplain for a donation for the poor and needy, and is of course unable to do
so. Ring any bells? Nudity is not necessary for the symbolism and is a
typically Crowleyan overkill. Unsubtle and unsophisticated.
Not that I feel obliged to say anything about it but I have nothing in
particular against nudity, I am probably as 'liberated' (if that word is still
in use) as anyone. But I do not have to walk naked up the high street at noon
to demonstrate the point. See what I mean?
One of your questions was what do I like? Again, a fair question. I like High
Magic. Anything else is profane and demeaning. I am aware that I probably have
a different view of the function of High Magic from some, but then I have been
working with it for longer than most. And if I may say so I probably know more
about it than most. Not arrogance or pomposity - objectivity.
I enjoyed your post, it obliged me to put some shape to my thinking in a
couple of areas. I hope it answers the questions you put.
Gavin
>The man had serious problems.
IMHO, the man was a great magician.
>I am not trying to demean Crowleyites or Thelemites, I would be happy to see
>any comment which might demonstrate something innately new or different about
>Crowley and his teaching. So far as I can see there is nothing new or
>particularly amazing in it. I think the whole OTO/93 thing has been expanded
>well beyond the limits of it's merit or potential.
For all your pretentiousness in other postings, this shows how little you
understand of Crowleys magick! His whole view of magick is radically
different from the traditional western magick. True, he took many symbols
and rituals from the GD, but the underlying concepts of magick are very
different.
While GD (and traditional western magic in general) holds up
the concept of a hierarchical cosmos, with God at the top and us lowly
humans at the bottom, Crowley rejected this view in favor of a
"decentralized" cosmos, made up of innumerable Gods or "stars". Each of
these stars is just as complete and supreme as any other. As you can
imagine, this has farreaching consequences. Instead of one "true" worldview
or way of doing things, you now have an infinite variety, with everything
being equally important and valid (I'll leave it to you to figure out the
consecquences for morality and every day life...). Which leads us to
Crowleys attitude to magical systems like the kabbalah. Unlike
traditional magicians, who assumed kabbalah gave them "real knowledge"
about the universe and who believed in the objective validity of
correspondences, Crowley stressed that kabbalah was no more than a scheme
for classification, that it was essentially arbitrary and that the only
criterium for the value of a magical scheme like this was convenience.
The same applies to other magical concepts and techniques. In this he
was a forerunner of modern chaos magick.
Apart from this different cosmology (and it's consecquences), Crowley was
probably the first magician to advocate (and use) the methods of
scientific experimentation in magickal practice. Using these tends to make
magick more reliable and leads to more tangible than the naďve approach
favored by so-called "spiritual" magicians.
Crowley made a clear break with the pseudo-christianity of traditional
western magick, and he vastly improved the way magick was practised.
These are, IMHO, some tall achievements...
PS: if one thing has been carried far beyond its merit or potential it's
GD-style magick...
Adoniram
> completely escape the religion and behavior of your childhood -- but you
> can subject it to an alchemical process and try to make gold from lead.
>
> 93 93/93
> Bill Heidrick
Apart from the psychological speculations, there are also qabalistical
aspects for adopting the motto To Mega Therion which in Greek gematria
equals 666. Crowley synthesised many aspects of the Beast which are
not to be regarded positivistic or negativistic. I.e. Mark of the
Beast is the Sign of Initiation on the forehead of Cain and further
elaboration of this idea represents Atu VI and 'even further' Atu XIV.
The idea of 'Evil' which is not! the opposition of 'Good', but only
the absence of good, or in a another way, radical good in itself is
always radical evil is present in every religion. Another example:
there is no opposition of light and darkness, darkness is a place
of possibility for the manifestation of light...
93 93/93
Adoniram
neil
sv <s...@mbha.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Hmmm. OK. How about: In my estimation (based on his behaviour as described in
>books about his life), the man had serious problems... :-)
>
>I don't have to be an expert biologist to know a duck is a duck. I just
>have to hear it quack.
>--
>sv
It's a refreshing change to find someone around here who does not emulate
AC to god-like proportions.
You've clearly read AC's non-magick oriented writing, which, sadly, most
people do not. It's a shame that most people do not actually read
Confessions, though I suspect that a great many have bought it.
His very compelling writing style used in his magickal texts just seems to
suck-in an awful lot of 'sheep'.
Still, he achived his goal.
Neil...
sv
gavin.b...@student.kuleuven.ac.be "Gavin" writes:
] In article <82533341...@mbha.demon.co.uk>, s...@mbha.demon.co.uk (sv) says:
]
] IMHO, the man was a great magician.
Is that you again Gavin? I expect you will launch some abuse next...
] For all your pretentiousness in other postings, this shows how little you
] understand of Crowleys magick! His whole view of magick is radically
Tsk. Yes, I thought you would. How's the knuckles?
Alternatively, the difference in our perspectives may well show something quite
different...
] While GD (and traditional western magic in general) holds up
] the concept of a hierarchical cosmos, with God at the top and us lowly
] humans at the bottom, Crowley rejected this view in favor of a
] "decentralized" cosmos, made up of innumerable Gods or "stars". Each of
] these stars is just as complete and supreme as any other. As you can
] imagine, this has farreaching consequences. Instead of one "true" worldview
You miss the whole point about the comment 'every man and woman is a star'.
Email me and I will explain it to you if you like.
] or way of doing things, you now have an infinite variety, with everything
] being equally important and valid (I'll leave it to you to figure out the
] consecquences for morality and every day life...). Which leads us to
] Crowleys attitude to magical systems like the kabbalah. Unlike
] traditional magicians, who assumed kabbalah gave them "real knowledge"
] about the universe and who believed in the objective validity of
] correspondences, Crowley stressed that kabbalah was no more than a scheme
] for classification, that it was essentially arbitrary and that the only
] criterium for the value of a magical scheme like this was convenience.
] The same applies to other magical concepts and techniques. In this he
] was a forerunner of modern chaos magick.
Oh dear. Think about it _please_. Chaos Magic is a contradiction in terms in
precisely the same way as Satanism is a contradiction in terms.
] Apart from this different cosmology (and it's consecquences), Crowley was
] probably the first magician to advocate (and use) the methods of
] scientific experimentation in magickal practice. Using these tends to make
] magick more reliable and leads to more tangible than the nave approach
] favored by so-called "spiritual" magicians.
Oh dear. Scientific approach? Where precisely did you see this?
] Crowley made a clear break with the pseudo-christianity of traditional
] western magick, and he vastly improved the way magick was practised.
] These are, IMHO, some tall achievements...
Don't be silly. Crowleys aversion to Christianity was obsessive. Christian
symbolism pervades everything Crowley ever did. His choice of the 'Great Beast'
pseudonym demonstrates this. Even when dealing with what little Greek he knew
he could not escape his own obsessive nature. His alternative pseudonym
'To Mega Therion' (anglicised) was carefully composed to yield a gematria
of 666. These are both Christian concepts. If you must be scornful and abusive,
the least you could do it talk sense while you are doing it!
] PS: if one thing has been carried far beyond its merit or potential it's
] GD-style magick...
Oh well, fair enough. I expressed my opinion and this is yours.
As Winston Churchill said ' I will defend to the death your right to be
completely wrong if you so wish... (at least I _think_ it was Winston
Churchill :-)
--
sv
sv
david.b...@guest.arnes.si "Adoniram" writes:
] > He was raised a Christian. You talk about what you know. You also never
Oh _please_! To say there is no principle of absolute evil is naive. To present
it as the potential for good is taking semantics to extremes.
The problem of the existence and nature of good and evil is a very complex
subject and it is fraught with difficulty. The way it is expressed above is
misleading in that it suggests an absolute frame of reference for both good
and evil, for which there is no basis in reality. There are trains of thought
as to the less relative natures of both.
As one maps the progress of the initiate as demonstrated by their thoughts,
one notices that most come to an perception (in their early stages of
development) that concepts of good and evil are of no value (the most often
quoted example is that of a knife which can cut bread or kill a person). This
is only a rudimentary argument, and the initiate usually comes to a recognition
that there are more complexities here than there appear to be while in the
first flush of magical awareness.
--
sv
sv
ne...@cthree.demon.co.uk "neil" writes:
] In article <825337...@mbha.demon.co.uk>,
Yes indeed. Crowley himself states the point in Book of Lies (or was it Aha!?)
where he confides to someone that the great mystery of the world is 'there's
one born every minute' (paraphrased).
--
sv
sv
] In article <31325F...@guest.arnes.si>
] david.b...@guest.arnes.si "Adoniram" writes:
]
] As one maps the progress of the initiate as demonstrated by their thoughts,
] one notices that most come to an perception (in their early stages of
] development) that concepts of good and evil are of no value (the most often
] quoted example is that of a knife which can cut bread or kill a person). This
] is only a rudimentary argument, and the initiate usually comes to a recognition
] that there are more complexities here than there appear to be while in the
] first flush of magical awareness.
Apology to Adoniram: on re-reading this after posting it seems a bit terse.
Sorry. I think I had just read some more drivel about seidr at the time so I
was feeling stressed.
No offence intended... :-)
--
sv
R Brzustowicz
. . . .
>
>Now to the plagiarism I have mentioned. The first degree of Freemasonry (The
>Entered Apprentice Degree) has the initiate deprived of all metals and
>valuables and clothed in a particular simple garb. He is then asked by the
>chaplain for a donation for the poor and needy, and is of course unable to do
>so. Ring any bells? Nudity is not necessary for the symbolism and is a
>typically Crowleyan overkill. Unsubtle and unsophisticated.
But Crowley did not invent the OTO or its rituals out of whole cloth.
Was this particular device present or absent from the OTO rituals before
Crowley edited them? If so, the "plagiarism" was not Crowley's -- though
with something as diffuse as Freemasonry (not in its normative form, but
in its actual historical range of forms and obediences and alliances),
complaining about plagiarism of a particular ritual device is a bit
like using the same word to describe similaritities in eucharistic
rites in Christian denominations.
Also: if Crowley's contribution to the device was nudity, and nudity
was not ever a part of earlier Masonic ritua; usage, then Crowley's
contribution was not plagiarism. Contrariwise, if Crowley was borrowing
some earlier (though perhaps unorthodox) Masonic usage, it was not
something that came purely from his own taste for extremes.
It seems that the OTO no longer claims to "make Masons" -- but this
suggests it once did. Was this claim part of the OTO from the
beginning? Or was it adopted at some point after the OTO was founded?
If so, under whose leadership?
R Brzustowicz
EKestrel
writes:
>Oh _please_! To say there is no principle of absolute evil is naive.
><snip>
>The way it is expressed above is
>misleading in that it suggests an absolute frame of reference for both
good
>and evil, for which there is no basis in reality.
I'm afraid you've lost me. First you say it's naive to say there is no
principle of absolute evil, then you say there is no basis in reality for
an absolute frame of reference. Which is it?
-Kestrel
sv
b...@u.washington.edu "R Brzustowicz" writes:
] In article <82545912...@mbha.demon.co.uk>, sv <s...@mbha.demon.co.uk> wrote:
] >
] >Now to the plagiarism I have mentioned. The first degree of Freemasonry (The
] >Entered Apprentice Degree) has the initiate deprived of all metals and
] >valuables and clothed in a particular simple garb. He is then asked by the
] >chaplain for a donation for the poor and needy, and is of course unable to do
] >so. Ring any bells? Nudity is not necessary for the symbolism and is a
] >typically Crowleyan overkill. Unsubtle and unsophisticated.
]
] But Crowley did not invent the OTO or its rituals out of whole cloth.
] Was this particular device present or absent from the OTO rituals before
] Crowley edited them? If so, the "plagiarism" was not Crowley's -- though
] with something as diffuse as Freemasonry (not in its normative form, but
] in its actual historical range of forms and obediences and alliances),
] complaining about plagiarism of a particular ritual device is a bit
] like using the same word to describe similaritities in eucharistic
] rites in Christian denominations.
Fair enough.
] Also: if Crowley's contribution to the device was nudity, and nudity
] was not ever a part of earlier Masonic ritua; usage, then Crowley's
] contribution was not plagiarism. Contrariwise, if Crowley was borrowing
] some earlier (though perhaps unorthodox) Masonic usage, it was not
] something that came purely from his own taste for extremes.
Fair enough.
] It seems that the OTO no longer claims to "make Masons" -- but this
] suggests it once did. Was this claim part of the OTO from the
] beginning? Or was it adopted at some point after the OTO was founded?
] If so, under whose leadership?
]
] R Brzustowicz
Hmmm. All points accepted. There are a lot of 'if's though. The fundamental
point is whether or not Crowley adopted the OTO system (which I recall was
a pseudo-masonic rite) or whether he actually created a substantially new
system. I had thought the latter but certainty fades with memory...
Food for thought.
He was obnoxious though :-)
--
sv
Gavin
>It seems to be the way of things these days that you can get up to the most
>appalling nonsense and justify it by quoting this 'expert' or that 'expert' in
>the quest for ever more obscure and trendy 'new' techniques. I offered some
>time ago to deliver some really obscure parts of the ceremonial of the
>Australian Aboriginal, and I was being only slightly ironical because it
>really does seem that the dilletante lunatics are now running the asylum. They
>are normally the ones who engage in decibel debate. You wouldn't believe some
>of the private email I've had from one or two of them (especially the OGDOS
>lot) - some of it has been only barely literate.
As far as I've seen, it has always been you who started insulting people!
By now we've seen through your tactics:
* First, you post an article criticizing whatever you personally
dislike in magick. Usually you don't even offer any arguments,
you just reject something out of hand, often without any knowledge
or experience of the topic at hand.
* Then, when other people criticize you, you insult them, at the same
time ignoring their arguments.
* Finally, you post an article complaining about the low standards of
the debate, while it was you all along who consistently refused to
talk arguments instead of insults!
>An attribute which distinguishes the initiate from the dilletante is the
>ability to be clinically objective.
Do you honestly believe in objectivity? I mean, am I reading this right?
Tell me, how can there be a view without a viewer...
>For example - I have no liking for Crowley
>or his brand of Magic. I believe it to be unsubtle and unsophisticated.
Compared to the GD-brand of magick you probably practice, Crowleys magick
is certainly more sophisticated, if only because he developed an
explanation of the how and why of magick. All Mathers did was patch
together some old rituals he found in a library.
>The man himself was, in my view, a deviant who delighted in being obnoxious at
>every opportunity. He had a remarkable ego and died dissolute and corrupt of
>body and mind. For right or wrong (and I believe that there is a body of
>evidence to support it), this is my view, based on the best education in the
>matter I can get.
I bet this is your real problem with Crowley. You dislike him because he
doesn't live up to YOUR idea of how one should live and what one should
believe. And because you can't stand him, you dismiss his magick as
worthless...
How childish.
>And if I may say so I probably know more
>about it than most. Not arrogance or pomposity - objectivity.
Anyone who honestly believes his views are objective is either plain
stupid, arrogant or both. You can choose for yourself which one applies
to you...
I bet you'll either ignore this post or send me an e-mail full of insults,
like you did last time.
If you decide to answer, then I suggest you offer some arguments as to
why Crowleys magick (as opposed to his personality) is crude and
unsophisticated and why GD is fundamentally better.
Kjetil Fjell
>Hmmm. OK. How about: In my estimation (based on his behaviour as described in
>books about his life), the man had serious problems... :-)
What sources have you used, and so on.....
>I don't have to be an expert biologist to know a duck is a duck. I just
>have to hear it quack.
No but you should be a biologist, or at least have some proper understanding of
the field, if you started giving away seemingly complex analyzes of the
duck's organism. ;)
That you think Crowley had serious problems are one thing, to begin to indulge
in coming to conclusions about his psychology: "Such was his psychology that he
needed to think this to counteract the low esteem in which he was held with all
except his own acolytes and followers", are something entirely different.
What I'm getting at is that after a decade of research modern psychology and
psychiatry has a hard time dealing with the complexities of the mind, what
makes you so sure that you after reading books about Crowley, including
his own, can just coff up some theory that explains his behaviour, without
even proper training (given that you haven't undergone such training).
The period normally necessary to decide whether a person is a schizophrenic
with some certainity, is six months under intense scrutiny in a hospital.
Scizophrenia is one of the most observed, defined, and researched of the
psychiatric disorders. When you seemingly easy, even considering that
you've read books about the life of this man, can follow up the argument
I have quoted above: "In order to demonstrate this, he did two things;
forstly he presented himself as the prophet or herald of the new age,
thereby exalting himself to a status which befitted his self-image". It
goes almost without saying that you are able to do something which most
trained psychologists and psychiatrists aren't able to do blindfolded,
now who was it that had an exaggerated ego? ;)
As for your argument concerning the lesson about giving to the poor
and needy, I must point out that what you mentioned isn't plagiarism.
Personally I don't think the way to learn the moral lesson are similiar
at all (the similiarity of the moral lesson are quoted below).
Considering the past of the O.T.O. as a quasi-masonic body it isn't
strange that there are similiarities in the moral lessons. There are
a lot of other similiarities. What about the idea about Universal
Brotherhood?
A lot of masonic thought stems from philosophy, does this mean
that thye have plagiarized these philosophers work?
In the swedish rite of freemaosnry, you have to be a christian, and
the rite itself is mainly concerned with christian lore. Using this
lore, suing the moral lessons of christianity, did the individual who
wrote this ritual plagiarize the ritual?
A more proper phrasing would be that masonic rituals contributed to
the rituals of the O.T.O. Crowley himself admitted that he rewrote
the early rituals of the O.T.O. (i.e. the maosnic ones).
Being unclothed don't have to be considered undignified, period. If you
feel that nudity in a Temple is a problem, that is your problem, not
necesarily everybody else. You generalise too much in your conclusion.
If you think nudity is not the right way to handle this, you are of
course entitled to your own opinnion, as I'm entitled to disagree.
And... I don't correlate feelings about this with liberation, so please don't
feel that I didn't think of you as liberated as the next guy ;)
sv
] In article <825413...@mbha.demon.co.uk>, sv <s...@mbha.demon.co.uk>
There is a principle of absolute evil, but there is no absolute frame of
reference which one can use to apply it to human affairs. Sorry if this is
confusing, I did not express it very well. It depends upon your understanding
of the nature and role of absolute evil. Absolute principles do not always
translate well into local circumstances.
I am not sure if this will be very helpful and there is a limit as to what can
usefully be discussed in public.
--
sv
Kjetil Fjell
>Hmmm. All points accepted. There are a lot of 'if's though. The >fundamental point is whether or not Crowley adopted the OTO system=
>(which I recall was a pseudo-masonic rite) or whether he actually >created a substantially new system. I had thought the latter but=
>certainty fades with memory...
Well you thought wrong so it is good that certainty fades with
memory ;) Crowley adopted the O.T.O. system, using the ordinary
Craft rituals, AAR rituals, and M&M rituals, that were in use
before Reuss asked him to rewrite the rituals.
So there are not as many 'if's as you would perhaps want.
>He was obnoxious though :-)
So are you, but what has that got to do with anything :-D
Kjetil Fjell
>Hmmm. All points accepted. There are a lot of 'if's though. The >fundamental point is whether or not Crowley adopted the OTO system=
t >certainty fades with memory...
93!
Now that you are wrong, doesn't this throw light upon your
earlier escapades where you denounced the OTO as of little
worth, when we can clearly see now that you have absolutely
no grasp about what it is about.
R Brzustowicz
>He was obnoxious though :-)
As a dinner guest, I imagine, he could have been a very pleasant and
entertaining companion (especially if one were well prepared to pay
the bill); as a house guest, he might have become fairly exasperating
fairly quickly.
Of course, these remarks are speculation founded on hearsay.
R Brzustowicz
sv
Kjetil Fjell <kfj...@james.avh.unit.no> said:-
If that it what you see then you are mistaken.
I though we were having a serious discussion. My mistake.
---
sv
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
olc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen11
This is all fascinating. Can you specificaly define what you mean by
High Magick ? You said that is something you like.
93 93/93 Ellen
sv
heid...@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) said:-
o less than stating a principle of absolute evil. Either absolute or
>relative evil requires definition and point of view. Depending on the
>definition, "evil" can be either absolute or relative by denotation and
>development of the ideas. Depending on point of view, "evil" will appear
>to be real to the mind and body, illusionary or non-existent. If the old
>definition of evil as promoting pain or physical/social damage is used,
>some evil is absolute to some physical point of view, but it will range
>from presumptive to arguable in social context. If a legal sort of
>definition is used for "evil", i.e. commandments or laws exist which can
>be clearly and unmistakably violated, absolute evil exists. If evil is
>defined relative to a limited deity, capable of being frustrated, absolute
>evil exists. Absolute evil cannot exist relative to an omniscient,
>omnipresent and omnipotent deity, since anything of that sort will be
>a special creation of said deity, not co-equal or superior to that deity.
>In this sense the Qabalists sometimes refer to creation itself as the
>infinite evil, not absolute because not eternal.
>The simplest point of view would appear to be that evil exists in a
>complex system, in the sense that contraditions and apparent contraditions
>are present in such a system. Thus, the material world has evil in so
>far as it appears to have discord. The most abstract spiritual world(s)
>do not possess the attribute of evil to the extent that they possess
>concord.
These is good food for thought. However, absolute evil can and does exist
albeit not in the familiar forms. You say above that;
>Absolute evil cannot exist relative to an omniscient,
>omnipresent and omnipotent deity, since anything of that sort will be
>a special creation of said deity, not co-equal or superior to that deity."
I agree that this is so, but only to the extent of an absolute evil not
existing which is co-equal to Godhead. Co-equality is not implicit in the term
of 'absolute evil'. Of course, if this is so, then absolute evil must be both
the creation and a manifestion of Godhead. Absolute evil as a macrocosmic
principle does exist and provides the antithesis of Light, without which the
concept of light has no meaning. Light and darkness are two of the things that
we define in terms of their opposites since they have no appropriate
descriptions otherwise (no posts from physicists please, I already know the
physics of light - at least some of it).
The problem is with the connotation of evil in our daily experience. A
principle such as the word evil generally conveys would have only a relative
sense but one can (for example) say that the demonstration of evil in human
behaviour may be a local manifestation of a more general principle.
How then are we to define or envisage the more general principle?
George Leake
> There are other conculsions that can be reached. One of these is that Crowley
> carefully crafted his symbolism to reflect similarities with other symbol
> systems.
other Golden Dawn members; the question which I wonder about was whether
Crowley was predisposed to this syncretic technique or did he pick that up
in the GD
> One of the problems with 'new' proposals like the precession of the
> aeons is that one cannot be sure to what extent the vision or perception of
> the proposal has been influenced by the teaching that the proposer has already
> been exposed to. This must undermine the 'newness' of the proposal.
*somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that
these were not new ideas at all, or at least not new within the
astrological world
> For what it is worth, there must be a considerable suspicion that Crowley
> could not contemplate that his life was not the herald of something momentous.
> Such was his psychology that he needed to think this to counteract the low
> esteem in which he was held with all except his own acolytes and followers.
*isn't this a tad like saying the fact that something must exist if you
can't prove its absence?
> In order to do demonstrate this, he did two things; firstly he presented
> himself as the prophet or herald of the new age, thereby exalting himself to a
> status which befitted his self-image.
*but then how do you deal with the numerous examples of his
self-deprecating/mocking humor?
> So that the new age should be nothing as
> humdrum or conventional as the dawn of Aquarius which conventional astrology
> would propose (the timing of this in relation to his life would also have been
> inconvenient for him I imagine), it was also necessary to present a completely
> new system of cosmology in order to demonstrate the true cosmic significance
> of the fact of his birth.
*this comes over more as postulation than argument
> The man had serious problems.
*don't we all?
> I am frankly sceptical of the usefulness of the whole thelemic proposal.
*I think there are many of us who are sceptical and are open-minded to
your ideas; please elaborate.
> I am not trying to demean Crowleyites or Thelemites, I would be happy to see
> any comment which might demonstrate something innately new or different about
> Crowley and his teaching. So far as I can see there is nothing new or
> particularly amazing in it. I think the whole OTO/93 thing has been expanded
> well beyond the limits of it's merit or potential.
*I am no expert but I would suggest that part of Thelema's strength is not
what is new but what is old, elements of it remind one of aspects of Zen
Buddhism, Gnostic mysticism or even Shamanism. Isn't what is new in it
simply window dressing? Doesn't it at its core stress that the important
thing is not to do this ritual or this public mass or call that angelic
spirit or what have you, but one's inner development?
--
George Leake 512-471-9117 tali...@mail.utexas.edu
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."-George Washington
"For we are instinctively all too greedy for praise, and there is no sound or song that comes sweeter to our ears; praise, like Sirens' voices, is the kind of music that causes shipwreck to the man who does not stop his ears to its deceptive harmony."-B.Castiglione, "The Courtier"
George Leake
(neil) wrote:
> It's a refreshing change to find someone around here who does not emulate
> AC to god-like proportions.
the other extreme; I for one am sick of this Beavis and Butthead like
debate "Crowley Rules" vs. "Crowley Sucks"...can't we abandon these
personal declarations "I *feel* this about the OTO"...who the hell cares?
This isn't 4th grade drama class. Let's discuss facts and debate ideas.
Bill Heidrick
ne...@cthree.demon.co.uk (neil) writes:
>Crowley's scarlet women were his mistresses and also the prostitutes he
>used for various sex magick experiments.
No. Crowley reserved "Scarlet Woman" for one at a time, usually either
his wife or mistress fully involved in his magical work. Incidental sex
with friends and prostitutes was not linked to that term.
>You must remember that AC was, for much of his life, obsessed with
>upsetting and insulting people.
I would say that he was prone to upsetting and insulting, bordering on
obsessive behavior, but probably not perceived as such by him. More of
a case of difficult personality than anything intentional in his later
years.
>He had (has) a great deal to offer anyone studying magick, but it must
>*always* be filtered through a knowledge of his psychology and his
>personality. A cynical attitude to his original motives will reveal the
>gems and get rid of all the bullshit.
Sound advice for reading anything.
>I regard the Book of the Law as the desperate work of a lonely and
>incomplete man desperate for some attention and just a touch of
>immortality.
Sound imputation (realizing it's only one aspect) for any public
revelation.
93 93/93
Bill
m.k.
gavin.b...@student.kuleuven.ac.be writes:
>
>For all your pretentiousness in other postings, this shows how little
you
>understand of Crowleys magick! His whole view of magick is radically
>and rituals from the GD, but the underlying concepts of magick are very
>different.
A good beginning for an argument. A certain zing in the counter kick off,
and here we go. (sv, this is NOT abuse, it is called rhetoric flair.
Wether
rhetoric is nice, is another thing..)
>While GD (and traditional western magic in general) holds up
>the concept of a hierarchical cosmos, with God at the top and us lowly
>humans at the bottom, Crowley rejected this view in favor of a
>"decentralized" cosmos, made up of innumerable Gods or "stars".
Uh-oh. What you forget is that most of western esoterics saw the "ordered"
universe as a model. It did not necessarily involve a God with beard, but
such concepts as Faith & Hope. Crowleys great failing, in my humble view
was his inability to stand aside from the indoctrinated patterns of the
personalised God , and his failing see the system of co-relations he was
presented as the emanation of the emanation itself. In short, he was that
dangerous case, a man in rebellion against his inability for
all-perception..
Each of
>these stars is just as complete and supreme as any other.
Wich is why, eye suppose, you keep on with the hierarchical
organisations..:)
On a more serious note, one can say that indeed greed is as complex an
emotion
as love, and sorrow as fundamental as hope, but are these acceptable?
As you can
>imagine, this has farreaching consequences. Instead of one "true"
worldview
>or way of doing things, you now have an infinite variety, with everything
>being equally important and valid (I'll leave it to you to figure out
the
>consecquences for morality and every day life...).
The discernible consequences for morality, is that we now have an excuse
to
fulfill our pettiness. "Everything is relative", "God is dead".EYe can do
any
Goddamn thing Eye want. A friend of mine entered OTO, and halfway through
the
initiatory, he could not condemn (in a discussion) child-raping, as it
was a
point of moral, and morals were not to be trusted..
Which leads us to
>Crowleys attitude to magical systems like the kabbalah. Unlike
>traditional magicians, who assumed kabbalah gave them "real knowledge"
>about the universe and who believed in the objective validity of
>correspondences, Crowley stressed that kabbalah was no more than a
scheme
>for classification, that it was essentially arbitrary and that the only
>criterium for the value of a magical scheme like this was convenience.
Who ever claimed "REAL" knowledge of the universe ? Me, Eye am almost
unread, but Eye think you will find that any person with a modicum of
wisdom always
begins his statements/observations with the acknowledgment of
subjectiveness.
One can say that any sane man must hold the posibility of an illusion of
an
illusion open, but if the illusion is there, it can be read according to
certain patterns. Is it revolution to claim that you cannot be sure? Is
it mature to scorn honest doubt? BTW, what about the Book of the Law &
the cyclic
predestination of mr. Heidrick, wich Eye suppose is gathered from here?
What about his disbelief in the essence of true Will for Change?
>The same applies to other magical concepts and techniques. In this he
>was a forerunner of modern chaos magick.
Wich Eye know a litlle bit about. ANd NO, he wasnt. If ya take a look at
Ka/Os magi, wich is the art of building a gnostic structure wich implants
its reverbations into the patterns, he was no more a pioneer here than any
others. AO Spare gets that honor, together with quite a lot of weird
sound-
scientists & Avantgarde artists. You forget that the conceptualised
"magick"
is by definition that wich relates itself to Crowley, and thus to his
frame-
work. There are other paths.
>Apart from this different cosmology (and it's consecquences), Crowley
was
>probably the first magician to advocate (and use) the methods of
>scientific experimentation in magickal practice.
What about the alchemists?
Using these tends to make
>magick more reliable and leads to more tangible than the naïve approach
>favored by so-called "spiritual" magicians.
Ah, of course, the cynicism of Thelema is its strongest point, eh? Read
"Tree and Leaf " by Tolkien, wich is his Esoteric script.
>Crowley made a clear break with the pseudo-christianity of traditional
>western magick, and he vastly improved the way magick was practised.
In what ways?
>These are, IMHO, some tall achievements...
>
Now, Eye have been slagging Crowley. Wich Eye do not like so much to do.
His
Great achievement is to me the publishing of the tables of 777. Also, he
should be given points for his inability to accept any "superiority (eye
wonder how he would have liked the current situations of structures of
authority? ). Third, he Was within his Being, and documented it. He
delivered
a prophecy of staggering complexity. He wrote a lot of mediocre poetry. He
has inspired a lot of currents and countercurrents. He is dead.
>PS: if one thing has been carried far beyond its merit or potential it's
> GD-style magick...
If one thing has been carried far enough, it is the whole concept of magi
as a thing involving pointy hats. Television is magi. Advertisments are
sijils. A spell is a self-contained gnostic structure, aimed at
interfacing with your perceptive organs.
In Joy of Wonder
M.K.
Bill Heidrick
>Hmmm. All points accepted. There are a lot of 'if's though. The fundamental
>point is whether or not Crowley adopted the OTO system (which I recall was
>a pseudo-masonic rite) or whether he actually created a substantially new
>system. I had thought the latter but certainty fades with memory...
Aside from making Minerval initiatory instead of a correspondence membership
level like present day Associate membership and changing accidents of color
symbolism, Crowley kept the OTO degree system intact when he rewrote the
rituals. That includes the meaning and focus of each degree. Crowley did
elaborate the instructions, but he did not change their principals/secrets.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick, TG OTO
Gavin
>Uh-oh. What you forget is that most of western esoterics saw the "ordered"
>universe as a model. It did not necessarily involve a God with beard, but
>such concepts as Faith & Hope. Crowleys great failing, in my humble view
>was his inability to stand aside from the indoctrinated patterns of the
>personalised God , and his failing see the system of co-relations he was
>presented as the emanation of the emanation itself. In short, he was that
>dangerous case, a man in rebellion against his inability for
>all-perception..
Wether they saw God as a man with a beard, a ball of white light, or the
undefinable point of origin where everything comes together doesn't matter.
The important thing is their belief in a hierarchical cosmos. From this
position they drew all the same conclusions religious monotheďsts draw,
like a morality based on Absolute Truth, the need to obey Divine Law,...
As for the system of co-relations, zillions of correspondence systems are
in existence. Crowley did the only sensible thing: he concluded you should
teake one or invent one that fills your needs. Traditionalists, on the
contrary, believed that these correspondences were real/true knowledge
of the universe. Your claim they saw it as nothing but a model is
anachronistic.
As for the inability of all-perception, we all have this inability. Or
rather, we are never able to prove any knowledge to be certainly true,
(apart from logical consistency).
>The discernible consequences for morality, is that we now have an excuse
>to
>fulfill our pettiness. "Everything is relative", "God is dead".EYe can do
>any
>Goddamn thing Eye want. A friend of mine entered OTO, and halfway through
>the
>initiatory, he could not condemn (in a discussion) child-raping, as it
>was a
>point of moral, and morals were not to be trusted..
No, I never said ethics would become impossible. What I did mean is that
the traditional ethics based on Absolute Truth (= christian morality) is
untenable. I believe one can certainly draw ethical conclusions from a
POV like thelema. A moral value like tolerance e.g., cannot be too well
defended from a christian POV. For a thelemite this should be no problem.
>Who ever claimed "REAL" knowledge of the universe ? Me, Eye am almost
>unread, but Eye think you will find that any person with a modicum of
>wisdom always
>begins his statements/observations with the acknowledgment of
>subjectiveness.
>One can say that any sane man must hold the posibility of an illusion of
>an
>illusion open, but if the illusion is there, it can be read according to
>certain patterns. Is it revolution to claim that you cannot be sure?
Traditionalist magicians claimed they were discovering true knowledge. If
you don't believe me, just read some 19th (or even 20th) century books on
magick by traditionalist authors.
For magick, Crowleys scepticism was entirely new. If you don't believe me,
read up on the history of western magick.
>Is
>it mature to scorn honest doubt? BTW, what about the Book of the Law &
>the cyclic
>predestination of mr. Heidrick, wich Eye suppose is gathered from here?
>What about his disbelief in the essence of true Will for Change?
To me, the Book of the Law is a convenient "working document", a tool for
reflection, not the final word on life, the universe and everything.
As for mr. Heidricks views, I don't see why you should think I would
follow them slavishly (and I'm sure mr. Heidrick would be equally
surprised). I suggest you ask your question directly to him.
>>The same applies to other magical concepts and techniques. In this he
>>was a forerunner of modern chaos magick.
>
>Wich Eye know a litlle bit about. ANd NO, he wasnt.
Sorry, but Crowley is at least as big an influence on early chaos magick
as Spare. Compare "Liber Null" with "Magick in theory and practice", and
notice the similarities.
>>Apart from this different cosmology (and it's consecquences), Crowley
>was
>>probably the first magician to advocate (and use) the methods of
>>scientific experimentation in magickal practice.
>
>What about the alchemists?
Alchemy is IMHO somewhat different from magick.
> Using these tends to make
>>magick more reliable and leads to more tangible than the naďve approach
>>favored by so-called "spiritual" magicians.
>Ah, of course, the cynicism of Thelema is its strongest point, eh? Read
>"Tree and Leaf " by Tolkien, wich is his Esoteric script.
I'm talking about the technical aspects of practical magick here. Not
about inspirational literature. I can't see what Tolkien has got to do
with it.
>>Crowley made a clear break with the pseudo-christianity of traditional
>>western magick, and he vastly improved the way magick was practised.
>
>In what ways?
Empirical attitude and practical experimentation. A break with pseudo-
religious dogmatism.
>Now, Eye have been slagging Crowley. Wich Eye do not like so much to do.
By getting rid of the christian and religious aspects of western magick,
Crowley turned it into a way of individual liberation. This is his
greatest achievement.
>If one thing has been carried far enough, it is the whole concept of magi
>as a thing involving pointy hats. Television is magi. Advertisments are
>sijils. A spell is a self-contained gnostic structure, aimed at
>interfacing with your perceptive organs.
Crowley would probably have agreed with you :)
ata
> >Goddamn thing Eye want. A friend of mine entered OTO, and halfway through
> >the
> >initiatory, he could not condemn (in a discussion) child-raping, as it
> >was a
> >point of moral, and morals were not to be trusted..
93
Can you please explain a) what do you mean by "halfway through the
initatory" & b) what is the connection between membership in the OTO and
the inability to have a point of view in questions of a moral nature?
As an aside, possibly: You yourself is born into a Xian culture, and
cannot escape this. Xianity will be a backdrop to your stage no matter
what you do. It amy be possible to pretend otherwise, but pretentions
does not make it more "real".
93 93/93
ata
m.k.
gavin.b...@student.kuleuven.ac.be writes:
>
Thank you for a good answer..
>>Uh-oh. What you forget is that most of western esoterics saw the
"ordered"
>>universe as a model. It did not necessarily involve a God with beard,
but
>>such concepts as Faith & Hope. Crowleys great failing, in my humble view
>>was his inability to stand aside from the indoctrinated patterns of the
>>personalised God , and his failing see the system of co-relations he was
>>presented as the emanation of the emanation itself. In short, he was
that
>>dangerous case, a man in rebellion against his inability for
>>all-perception..
>
>Wether they saw God as a man with a beard, a ball of white light, or the
>undefinable point of origin where everything comes together doesn't
matter.
>The important thing is their belief in a hierarchical cosmos.
Hmmm. Do you mean that Crowley did no find an hierarchical cosmos? What
about
Aiwass & the councils of the Elders & all that?
From this
>position they drew all the same conclusions religious monotheīsts draw,
>like a morality based on Absolute Truth, the need to obey Divine Law,...
>As for the system of co-relations, zillions of correspondence systems are
>in existence. Crowley did the only sensible thing: he concluded you
should
>teake one or invent one that fills your needs. Traditionalists, on the
>contrary, believed that these correspondences were real/true knowledge
>of the universe. Your claim they saw it as nothing but a model is
>anachronistic.
Hmmm again. Point aken and considered. But Eye still would claim that most
considered christian mysticians & magicians(i.e. kabbalists) have based
their
thought models on the principles of the trinity: Truth, hope and love.
Wich makes all "knowledge " but a model in its more abstract aspects, as
we are within the truth of the hope of love... Make any sense?
>As for the inability of all-perception, we all have this inability. Or
>rather, we are never able to prove any knowledge to be certainly true,
>(apart from logical consistency).
True. But there is that gnostic longing for absolute Being wich Eye think
we all have a touch off, wich causes us to "curse the night". And there
are different reactions to the realisation of Selfs blindness... Wich is
where
Eye think Crowley failed...
>
>No, I never said ethics would become impossible. What I did mean is that
>the traditional ethics based on Absolute Truth (= christian morality) is
>untenable. I believe one can certainly draw ethical conclusions from a
>POV like thelema. A moral value like tolerance e.g., cannot be too well
>defended from a christian POV. For a thelemite this should be no problem.
>
By Kristian morality, you mean Church morality, right? But Eye agree, and
my
baiting of thelema and my distrust of it stems not from any disrespect
for its individual members, who Eye find are in general a nice, if
somewhat unfocused
lot.
>>Who ever claimed "REAL" knowledge of the universe ? Me, Eye am almost
>>unread, but Eye think you will find that any person with a modicum of
>>wisdom always
>>begins his statements/observations with the acknowledgment of
>>subjectiveness.
>>One can say that any sane man must hold the posibility of an illusion of
>>an
>>illusion open, but if the illusion is there, it can be read according
to
>>certain patterns. Is it revolution to claim that you cannot be sure?
>
>Traditionalist magicians claimed they were discovering true knowledge. If
>you don't believe me, just read some 19th (or even 20th) century books on
>magick by traditionalist authors.
Again, you have to separate between those with a material base, and those
who
took into consideration the mysteries... But Eye agree, and Eye like
Crowley
for his shock value. He would have made a good Coil-fan ;) Eye do think,
though, that if you go back to the Era of the Magi, you will find that the
systems of the Middleeast were amalgams of different traditions, and that
Gods
were used with even less "reverence" and more practic sense than in most
Kaos
magi... (Look at the Charms of Greece and Egypt, and the flow of the myth-
kults)
>For magick, Crowleys scepticism was entirely new. If you don't believe
me,
>read up on the history of western magick.
>
Eye refer to the last comment above. Entirely new in modern western
magic,
perhaps..
>>Is
>>it mature to scorn honest doubt? BTW, what about the Book of the Law &
>>the cyclic
>>predestination of mr. Heidrick, wich Eye suppose is gathered from here?
>>What about his disbelief in the essence of true Will for Change?
>
>To me, the Book of the Law is a convenient "working document", a tool for
>reflection, not the final word on life, the universe and everything.
But to Crowley it was, wasnt it?
>As for mr. Heidricks views, I don't see why you should think I would
>follow them slavishly (and I'm sure mr. Heidrick would be equally
>surprised). I suggest you ask your question directly to him.
Point taken & accepted :)
>
>>>The same applies to other magical concepts and techniques. In this he
>>>was a forerunner of modern chaos magick.
>>
>>Wich Eye know a litlle bit about. ANd NO, he wasnt.
>
>Sorry, but Crowley is at least as big an influence on early chaos magick
>as Spare. Compare "Liber Null" with "Magick in theory and practice", and
>notice the similarities.
>
Early Chaos magick, yes, if you by this mean Peter Caroll & IOT. But Kaos
magi
goes a bit deeper than that.. Discord & resonance, avoidance of
structuralism,
usage of conflicting models in chains of reactions... As for MagiCK,
possibly.
Magi is something else, and wider. (MagiCK seems to me very Male, to fuck
the
universe..)
>>>Apart from this different cosmology (and it's consecquences), Crowley
>>was
>>>probably the first magician to advocate (and use) the methods of
>>>scientific experimentation in magickal practice.
>>
>>What about the alchemists?
>
>Alchemy is IMHO somewhat different from magick.
MagiCK again. You called him a magician, this indicates one who works
within
the realms of magi, wich is a tradition running back to Iran and all
that..
(Wich you propably know much more off than Eye ). How is alchemy in
principle
different from other schools/paths, except that it works with material to
examine its own metaphors..?
>
>> Using these tends to make
>>>magick more reliable and leads to more tangible than the naīve
approach
>>>favored by so-called "spiritual" magicians.
>>Ah, of course, the cynicism of Thelema is its strongest point, eh? Read
>>"Tree and Leaf " by Tolkien, wich is his Esoteric script.
>
>I'm talking about the technical aspects of practical magick here. Not
>about inspirational literature. I can't see what Tolkien has got to do
>with it.
Read the book :) Part of it is a poem to C.S. Lewis in answer to his claim
that myths werer "lies breathed through silver". If you fail to understand
the practical usage of myths in magi, you have a hole. Examine the
spectacle of Elvis. How is that a tool ? Examine MTV, with their reality
creation. If magick is the infliction of change by the cause of WIll, you
can say that Magi
in its broader sense is the Art of Inflicting change. Myth-structures are
the frameworks you have to work with if you wanna go beyond your own
navel.
>
>>>Crowley made a clear break with the pseudo-christianity of traditional
>>>western magick, and he vastly improved the way magick was practised.
>>
>>In what ways?
>
>Empirical attitude and practical experimentation. A break with pseudo-
>religious dogmatism.
Eye had a copy of Skoob international catalogue, where there was printed
a copy of A.E. Waites journal (Eye forget the name). There was a very
strong
emphasis on "scientific" approach. Here Eye think you are wrong.
>
>>Now, Eye have been slagging Crowley. Wich Eye do not like so much to do.
>
>By getting rid of the christian and religious aspects of western magick,
>Crowley turned it into a way of individual liberation. This is his
>greatest achievement.
Well, he certainly opened up the room for choice. Liberation? What are
you/we
free to do?
>
>
>>If one thing has been carried far enough, it is the whole concept of
magi
>>as a thing involving pointy hats. Television is magi. Advertisments are
>>sijils. A spell is a self-contained gnostic structure, aimed at
>>interfacing with your perceptive organs.
>
>Crowley would probably have agreed with you :)
Yup, Eye think he would..:) A shame he never experienced the anarchists
of Rome..:). There is Beauty in the World too, you know.
Gavin
>from time to time (but not always). However my education was adequate to ensure
>that I do not have to take refuge in bad language or bad temper.
>You do not know me or what I have done or what I know and assumptions are likely
>to be misleading. Which I think will be my last response to you since you do
>not appear to have any credibility at all and I have other things to do...
You don't know me either, yet you continue to make assumptions about me!
Anyway, it's about time you start backing up your claims, instead of
being "ironical" (apparently your preferred expression for being rude to
other people). As far as I've seen, discussing issues instead of
people is clearly beyond your abilities.BTW, how did you determine my
crediblity?
M.K.
gavin.b...@student.kuleuven.ac.be (gavin) wrote:
>
> >(Wich you propably know much more off than Eye ). How is alchemy in
> >principle
> >different from other schools/paths, except that it works with material to
> >examine its own metaphors..?
>
> Well, first of all I'll say that I'm less familiar with the history of
> alchemy than with that of ritual magic.
> While alchemy and magic traditionally share the same goals
It does? What are those goals?
, and while
> alchemists and magicians were in the past frequently the same persons,
> I think it's still useful to differentiate between them, as both
> disciplines use different techniques (I think...). And it is in magick,
> that Crowley was the first with a scientific approach.
Again, as noted in earlier posts, you use the term magiCK. Wich Eye think
narrows down the field quite a bit, as it is Crowleys own definition...
<snip my own arguments>
>
> Yes, myths are important, I agree with you on this. But more is needed to
> turn myths into reality (real in your experiential world), and this is where
> magical technique comes in. I still think Crowley's approach to practical
> magick is more useful than the old just-obey-the-tradition-and-don't-ask-
> questions approach. For one thing, Crowleys approach allows you to reflect
> critically on your magick, and make improvements where necessary.
>
This is quite interesting. You say "to turn a myth into reality", implying that
these two, the myth and the reality are two separate, quantifiable entities.
Wich is to me where the "scientific" approach to the Art falls flat, since you
need to define in terms of cold language that whole associative process of
symbols wich is the core of the language of Art.. To me, myth IS reality,
in that
it structures the patterns, reflects & reverbates those same patterns and again
manipulate them according to its inherent pattern. And it is the act of
interacting
with these myth-patterns, by adding Words to the Weave, that is serious
magi.... (All in my own view, of course..)
> >Eye had a copy of Skoob international catalogue, where there was printed
> >a copy of A.E. Waites journal (Eye forget the name). There was a very
> >strong
> >emphasis on "scientific" approach. Here Eye think you are wrong.
>
> I haven't read this journal, so you'll understand it's difficult to make
> any comments about it. Could you perhaps tell me what was in it, and what
> struck you as being exemplary of a scientific approach? I fully aware that
> I might be wrong in any of my sayings, so I would appreciate any
> information showing me wrong.
Sorry, gave it away to a person who no longer acknowledge my existence, and
Eye cant remember the title. Skoob Esoterica was the name of the magazine
wich reprinted it, available from Skoob Publishing, London. The journal was
aimed at "Investigations into the paranormal" and was supported by quite
a few dignitaries, all in the best "scientific" manner of the day.. Mostly
concerned
with the "material" energies, such as radioactivity and its possible
explanation
"psychic" ability, it also consisted of material concerning mysticism and
kabbalism, as well as essays about the falsification of telekinesis &
clairvoyance..
Thesis, experiment , result.
>
> >Well, he certainly opened up the room for choice. Liberation? What are
> >you/we
> >free to do?
>
> I don't know, and none of ever can know, wether we are free or not.
> Personal experience seems to indicate at least some freedom, but this
> may be an illusion. We'll never know, so it's probably better to stop
> bothering ourselves about this question.
Laugh !!
> From a practical POV, adopting the idea of freedom seems a very sensible
> idea. Should we be free after all, then with this attitude we'll be able
> to enjoy our freedom at it's maximum. Should we not be free, then it doesn't
> matter what attitude we take.
Agreed. What attitude do you take ?
> Like you say, Crowley opened up room for choice, and that's one of his
> achievements IMHO.
>
Well, but what did he choose? What is the choice of the current wich resulted
from his interactions? Kein bestandeil sein ?
> >... There is Beauty in the World too, you know.
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
No. Beauty is a pure state of being, not a subjective experience of a phenomena.
A tree is beautiful even though no-one sees it. Smile.
M.K.
sv
gavin.b...@student.kuleuven.ac.be "Gavin" writes:
[ snip out all of the nonsense bits and retain the good bits... ]
--
sv
gavin
>In article <4hp2n8$5...@chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be>
> gavin.b...@student.kuleuven.ac.be "Gavin" writes:
>
>
>[ snip out all of the nonsense bits and retain the good bits... ]
Oh, there we have it again! Still unable to put up some sensible
argumentation to support your views?
I really don't understand why you keep replying to my posts, as it has
become clear by now that you have nothing intelligent to say.
It seems that all you are capable of is insults. Since you clearly lack
both the basic intelligence and the necessary minimal knowledge and experience
of magick to hold an interesting discussion, this will be my final post on this
topic. In the future, I'll only respond when you're trying to insult me or
when you start telling lies about me again.
I have nothing but contempt for you.
BTW, why is it that you're unable to discuss a topic without using abuse and
deceit to "win"?
PS It seems you've realized you've lost all credibility on this newsgroup, as
you now use the name "Dave" on your own little ghetto-newsgroup...