Question about Thelema and Mr. Crowley (not the song)

[cptmarginal]

Crowley was a bit of a performance artist as well as a magician. His work is very difficult to understand if you don't get the joke.

When he abandoned his fellow mountaineers under an avalanche then raced back to civilisation to clear out the expedition's bank accounts, was that performance art of humourism?

"I always find it interesting on these Crowley threads, they revolve around what he was or was not, did or did not, etc. Rather than many other artists, who are reflected on by their body of work, not so much the artist. I wonder how many people who debate have actually read but more importantly understood any of his work. "

I notice Crowleyites don't like anyone to have an independent knowledge of mysticism.

I don't know about "Crowleyites" but from reading the man's books I get the exact opposite impression. Not just that the very first steps involve reading a shitload of books about the history and comparative practice of religion and philosophy, but that you are also required to have independent knowledge of yoga practice (among other things)

And no, I am not a member of any organization whatsoever. I'm just someone who, through introduction via R.A. Wilson and Grant Morrison, has gotten an impression of Aleister Crowley totally different from both the weird dark personality cult and the weird alarmists. That certainly doesn't mean I'm going to live my life like his, or that he's my only source of inspiration (very far from it)

I guess it doesn't hurt my instinct to defend his work that he showed up in an intensely vivid almost-numinous dream of mine, introduced me to all of his brothers and sisters at a fin-de-siecle aristocratic dinner party, then had me smoke some kind of magical marijuana out of an earth bong (I was high all day). Uncle Al has the bomb, yo

[OP ED]

Crowley was a bit of a performance artist as well as a magician. His work is very difficult to understand if you don't get the joke.

When he abandoned his fellow mountaineers under an avalanche then raced back to civilisation to clear out the expedition's bank accounts, was that performance art of humourism?

neither. It is an oversimplification with needed citations. Crowley spoiled dozens of expeditions. You'll have to be more specific [dates, etc] if you wish to make so bold a claim as the one above and have your deliberately one-sided and unsourced statements taken at face value.

I suspect you do not even know what you're referencing and merely repeating internet innuendo without references. Or sunday express headlines.

this is the part where i ignore Morgan again and his uninformed prattling on about "the left-hand path" or whatever.

I notice Crowleyites don't like anyone to have an independent knowledge of mysticism.

The right hand path is restraint, the left hand path is the breach.

I've noticed that people throw around guilt-by-association insults like "Crowleyite" whenever they find their actual information to be lacking for their goals.

Since the term means whatever the insulter wishes, it is hard to prove your statement false, as i do not personally know any "Crowleyites".

Thelemites I know, on the other hand, are much the opposite. Crowley's mysticism, as i've said previously, is not for beginners. Which is to say that independent knowledge of mysticism is not only permissibile it is required in most cases.

I find your platitudes about evil and left and right hands to be very shallow and generally uninformed, esp wrt how these things are interpreted by Thelemites.

Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer of reason usurps its place and governs the unwilling. And being restrained, it by degrees becomes passive, till it is only the shadow of desire. Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell
[part of the 0* A:.A:. reading curriculum]

[bobdobbs]

When he abandoned his fellow mountaineers under an avalanche then raced back to civilisation to clear out the expedition's bank accounts, was that performance art of humourism?

I've heard that if you're a mountain climber and there's an avalanche trapping your companions, you're better off leaving them behind and going to get help. Any attempt at trying to rescue your trapped fellow climbers will only result in your own death, and you're better off trying to get help while you can.

Also, my two-cents about Crowley, I think he's fascinating, although I don't think he's any sort of messiah (as his followers think) and I don't think he's any sort of anti-christ either.

I feel that the book of the law is an important book to read and understand for anyone who is studying the occult, or religious texts, whether you agree with it or not. I feel he made a significant impact on the occult world, translated important lost occult books, and brought a new philosophy to the fore. But his egotism and arrogance may have tainted his efforts to start a religion around his "new aeon". Like him or hate him you can't deny his influence over modern occultism.

[Stephen Morgan]

"I always find it interesting on these Crowley threads, they revolve around what he was or was not, did or did not, etc. Rather than many other artists, who are reflected on by their body of work, not so much the artist. I wonder how many people who debate have actually read but more importantly understood any of his work. "

You would prefer threads about the man to ignore his nature and his deeds? That wouldn't leave much to talk about. And the man wasn't an artist, as anyone who's come across his poetry will attest. Besides, you've misunderstood modern art. The persona of the artist is the whole point, that's how modern art works. You think any Emin or Hirst has artistic merit? Bollocks it does, it's all about them.

I don't know about "Crowleyites" but from reading the man's books I get the exact opposite impression. Not just that the very first steps involve reading a shitload of books about the history and comparative practice of religion and philosophy, but that you are also required to have independent knowledge of yoga practice (among other things)

That probably explains why so many of his little groupies don't seem to know very much.

neither. It is an oversimplification with needed citations. Crowley spoiled dozens of expeditions. You'll have to be more specific [dates, etc] if you wish to make so bold a claim as the one above and have your deliberately one-sided and unsourced statements taken at face value.

I suspect you do not even know what you're referencing and merely repeating internet innuendo without references. Or sunday express headlines.

I doubt the Express has mentioned the man since long before I was born. They're a newspaper, after a fashion, they're hardly going to be interested in anything so esoteric. I'm surprised you think he ruined dozen of expeditions, though. His mountaineering claims are debatable, of course, but his fans are normally eager to accept all his claims.

Look for the book "The Beast Demystified". A bit tame, but the most reliable books always are.

Thelemites I know, on the other hand, are much the opposite. Crowley's mysticism, as i've said previously, is not for beginners. Which is to say that independent knowledge of mysticism is not only permissibile it is required in most cases.

Yet genuine mystics will almost always disagree with his interpretations.

I find your platitudes about evil and left and right hands to be very shallow and generally uninformed, esp wrt how these things are interpreted by Thelemites.

I'm not interesting in Thelemic interpretations, I prefer going to the source. I object to the term Thelemic, also. Such weakly-egoed individuals shouldn't claim to represent Will.

Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer of reason usurps its place and governs the unwilling. And being restrained, it by degrees becomes passive, till it is only the shadow of desire. Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell
[part of the 0* A:.A:. reading curriculum]

That's rather the idea, dear. If your ego is too weak to overcome your desires you've already died the little death, the real little death, because you're no more than a glorified animal. A beast, if you will. If you can control yourself your desires will eventually be whipped into shape and will be much easier to control. Habit-forming.

I don't want to imply that the left hand path is about giving into your desires, though. The natural conclusion to the logic of the left-hand path is the cultivation of perverted desires. I don't think the global elites start off as narco-pederasts. They make themselves that way because they think breaking the mental bonds of morality and convention will make them powerful, rational, supermen in fact. That's why you shouldn't be surprised to find James Shelby Downard talking about inter-racial sex in the Ku Klux Klan's occult rituals. To the Klan this was the big taboo, to Sade in was homosexuality and necrophilia, now it's narcopederasty.

I've heard that if you're a mountain climber and there's an avalanche trapping your companions, you're better off leaving them behind and going to get help. Any attempt at trying to rescue your trapped fellow climbers will only result in your own death, and you're better off trying to get help while you can.

You've probably heard right, but Crowley made no effort to fetch help.

Also, my two-cents about Crowley, I think he's fascinating, although I don't think he's any sort of messiah (as his followers think) and I don't think he's any sort of anti-christ either.

He's no more an anti-Christ than I am, he's not important enough. He was a second rate medium and pervert. He couldn't even recognise a true mystic when he was lucky enough to come across L Ron Hubbard, telling Parsons he was a con-man. (Technically true, of course.)

I feel that the book of the law is an important book to read and understand for anyone who is studying the occult, or religious texts, whether you agree with it or not. I feel he made a significant impact on the occult world, translated important lost occult books, and brought a new philosophy to the fore. But his egotism and arrogance may have tainted his efforts to start a religion around his "new aeon". Like him or hate him you can't deny his influence over modern occultism.

Of course he only channeled the Book of the Law, which demonstrates normal occultic attitudes, it's nothing revolutionary. All of the above, indeed, is unreasonably trusting of his claims to finding lost texts and so forth. His philosophy was the same as that of the Maquis de Sade, the social darwinists, the contactees and probably of Gilles de Retz if we could know it more accurately.

[OP ED]

"I always find it interesting on these Crowley threads, they revolve around what he was or was not, did or did not, etc. Rather than many other artists, who are reflected on by their body of work, not so much the artist. I wonder how many people who debate have actually read but more importantly understood any of his work. "

You would prefer threads about the man to ignore his nature and his deeds? That wouldn't leave much to talk about. And the man wasn't an artist, as anyone who's come across his poetry will attest. Besides, you've misunderstood modern art. The persona of the artist is the whole point, that's how modern art works. You think any Emin or Hirst has artistic merit? Bollocks it does, it's all about them.

I don't know about "Crowleyites" but from reading the man's books I get the exact opposite impression. Not just that the very first steps involve reading a shitload of books about the history and comparative practice of religion and philosophy, but that you are also required to have independent knowledge of yoga practice (among other things)

That probably explains why so many of his little groupies don't seem to know very much.

[more insults from the white lighter]

neither. It is an oversimplification with needed citations. Crowley spoiled dozens of expeditions. You'll have to be more specific [dates, etc] if you wish to make so bold a claim as the one above and have your deliberately one-sided and unsourced statements taken at face value.

I suspect you do not even know what you're referencing and merely repeating internet innuendo without references. Or sunday express headlines.

I doubt the Express has mentioned the man since long before I was born. They're a newspaper, after a fashion, they're hardly going to be interested in anything so esoteric. I'm surprised you think he ruined dozen of expeditions, though. His mountaineering claims are debatable, of course, but his fans are normally eager to accept all his claims.

i was, obviously, talking about express headlines from before you were born. you'd be suprised how much of their material i still find laying around here and there.

Look for the book "The Beast Demystified". A bit tame, but the most reliable books always are.

by hutchinson, yes. its on the reading list. i prefer Sutin, but mostly for stylistic reasons.

Thelemites I know, on the other hand, are much the opposite. Crowley's mysticism, as i've said previously, is not for beginners. Which is to say that independent knowledge of mysticism is not only permissibile it is required in most cases.

Yet genuine mystics will almost always disagree with his interpretations.

"genuine mystics" which i suppose you're defining along your own parameters. i suppose in that respect its not worth my time to debate this statement.

I find your platitudes about evil and left and right hands to be very shallow and generally uninformed, esp wrt how these things are interpreted by Thelemites.

I'm not interesting in Thelemic interpretations, I prefer going to the source. I object to the term Thelemic, also. Such weakly-egoed individuals shouldn't claim to represent Will.

more insults. yes. your objections are noted.

Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer of reason usurps its place and governs the unwilling. And being restrained, it by degrees becomes passive, till it is only the shadow of desire. Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell
[part of the 0* A:.A:. reading curriculum]

That's rather the idea, dear. If your ego is too weak to overcome your desires you've already died the little death, the real little death, because you're no more than a glorified animal. A beast, if you will. If you can control yourself your desires will eventually be whipped into shape and will be much easier to control. Habit-forming.

actually you seem to be getting rather the opposite of the point.

I don't want to imply that the left hand path is about giving into your desires, though. The natural conclusion to the logic of the left-hand path is the cultivation of perverted desires. I don't think the global elites start off as narco-pederasts. They make themselves that way because they think breaking the mental bonds of morality and convention will make them powerful, rational, supermen in fact. That's why you shouldn't be surprised to find James Shelby Downard talking about inter-racial sex in the Ku Klux Klan's occult rituals. To the Klan this was the big taboo, to Sade in was homosexuality and necrophilia, now it's narcopederasty.

you still keep saying "left hand path" as if it is somehow relevant to our discussion. This is more what i take issue with than your outlining of your definitions for terms.

I've heard that if you're a mountain climber and there's an avalanche trapping your companions, you're better off leaving them behind and going to get help. Any attempt at trying to rescue your trapped fellow climbers will only result in your own death, and you're better off trying to get help while you can.

You've probably heard right, but Crowley made no effort to fetch help.

Also, my two-cents about Crowley, I think he's fascinating, although I don't think he's any sort of messiah (as his followers think) and I don't think he's any sort of anti-christ either.

He's no more an anti-Christ than I am, he's not important enough. He was a second rate medium and pervert. He couldn't even recognise a true mystic when he was lucky enough to come across L Ron Hubbard, telling Parsons he was a con-man. (Technically true, of course.)

Thelema has no christ or antichrist except as symbols. the man crowley is largely irrelevant as thing in itself as far as this is concerned.

I feel that the book of the law is an important book to read and understand for anyone who is studying the occult, or religious texts, whether you agree with it or not. I feel he made a significant impact on the occult world, translated important lost occult books, and brought a new philosophy to the fore. But his egotism and arrogance may have tainted his efforts to start a religion around his "new aeon". Like him or hate him you can't deny his influence over modern occultism.

Of course he only channeled the Book of the Law, which demonstrates normal occultic attitudes, it's nothing revolutionary. All of the above, indeed, is unreasonably trusting of his claims to finding lost texts and so forth. His philosophy was the same as that of the Maquis de Sade, the social darwinists, the contactees and probably of Gilles de Retz if we could know it more accurately.

misrepresentation. guilt by association.
move to strike.
also...
citation needed.

[Truth4Youth]

OP ED, out of curiosity, are you familiar with the work of Lon Milo DuQuette?

[OP ED]

indeed.

it is extremely shallow. Nothing against the bugger, but DuQuette is one of those who lives off of surface interpretations of Crowley's more obvious work.

[cptmarginal]

"I always find it interesting on these Crowley threads, they revolve around what he was or was not, did or did not, etc. Rather than many other artists, who are reflected on by their body of work, not so much the artist. I wonder how many people who debate have actually read but more importantly understood any of his work. "

You would prefer threads about the man to ignore his nature and his deeds? That wouldn't leave much to talk about. And the man wasn't an artist, as anyone who's come across his poetry will attest. Besides, you've misunderstood modern art. The persona of the artist is the whole point, that's how modern art works. You think any Emin or Hirst has artistic merit? Bollocks it does, it's all about them.

Nope, I don't need it to be ignored. Obviously this thread was going to be about those sorts of things. I just find it interesting, and I hardly think that Crowley can be accurately portrayed with such a broad brush. I'm interested in his deeds, too, but certainly not of the tabloid variety. I know those things too, and they hardly seem grounds for such wholesale rejection based on his "persona" singular.

William S. Burroughs carelessly shot his wife dead (and suffered his whole life for it) and yet does not seem to receive 1/100 of the negative attention paid to Crowley, I guess just because he lived in a much different context.

As for your stereotypical ideas about "modern art", I'm at a loss. I for one have absolutely zero interest in any art which I do not find merit in. I may not like Crowley's poetry or fiction very often, but even in that limited range of his written work I find gems:

And then she perceived that Cyril and his two companions formed but one triangle, out of uncounted thousands; and each triangle was at a knot upon the web of an enormous spider. At each knot was such a group of three, and every one was different. There must have been millions of such gods, each with its pair of worshippers; every race and clime and period was represented. There were the gods of Mexico and of Peru, of Syria and Babylon, of Greece and Rome, of obscure swamps of Ethiopia, of deserts and mountains. And upon each thread of the web, from knot to knot, danced incredible insects, and strange animals, and hideous reptiles. They danced, sang, and whirled frantically, so that the entire web was a mere bewilderment of motion. Her head swam dizzily. But she was now full of a curious anger; her thought was that the Old Lady had betrayed her. She found it quite impossible to approach the triangle, for one thing: she was furious that it should be Sister Clara herself who had led her into this Sabbath, for another; and she was infinitely disgusted at the whole vile revel. Now she noticed that each pair of worshippers had newborn children in their arms; and they offered these to their god, who threw them instantly towards the centre of the web. Following up those cruel meshes, she beheld the spider itself, with its six legs. Its head and body formed one black sphere, covered with moving eyes that darted rays of darkness in every direction, and mouths that sucked up its prey without remorse or cessation, and cast it out once more in the form of fresh strands of that vibrating web.

I don't know about "Crowleyites" but from reading the man's books I get the exact opposite impression. Not just that the very first steps involve reading a shitload of books about the history and comparative practice of religion and philosophy, but that you are also required to have independent knowledge of yoga practice (among other things)

That probably explains why so many of his little groupies don't seem to know very much.

I would think it might indicate the opposite...?

I think you're missing the difference between an avowed fan and an actual candidate for membership who has to not only read these books, but be comprehensively tested for memory, understanding, and practical application of concepts.

Yet genuine mystics will almost always disagree with his interpretations.

General semantics

I don't see very much room for wholesale disagreement when it comes to Crowley's discourses on logic etc. I find some of it quite advanced, and sometimes put into more direct language than was to be found almost anywhere at the time. This, I think, is a big part of the reason Robert Anton Wilson was such a fan: he was speaking from a similar "Quantum Psychology" perspective at a very early date. Timothy Leary was interested for similar reasons.

Which specific questions of interpretation are you thinking of which are so contentious as to isolate Crowley? Of course, you can just use the bludgeon of "genuine mystics" to make it much easier.

[NaturalMystik]

While browsing another thread I noticed the mention of a show called "Strange Angel" about the life of Jack Parsons and his involvement with the OTO. I felt compelled to check it out, not sure what the general buzz is on it, but it's interesting... One thing I've noticed after hearing so many people say "Thelema" is that to me at least it sounds a lot like "The lam". I know that Thelema and Lam have different word origins.

The word thelema is the English transliteration of the Koine Greek noun θέλημα, "will", from the verb θέλω: "to will, wish, want or purpose"

“LAM is the Tibetan word for Way or Path, and LAMA is He who Goeth

Not sure what kind of point I'm trying to make, but it's almost like Lam is a personification of Thelema, The Lama... Or maybe just some word play going on and Crowley is having a laugh...