| From the Galleries |
2095 pictures in 33 albums
Art by Aleister Crowley
Door of Thelema Abbey
Last Updated Picture:
Star of Babalon Pendant.
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
34,025,480
Yesterday's visits:
28,971
Registrations:
Today: 1
Yesterday: 3
Overall: 7025
Newest Members:
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
[...] when I say magical I don't mean illusions, I mean magic in the sense of Crowley magick. I have been meeting and having very informative exchanges with practising magicians in this country and in America. I treat the occult very seriously, in fact more and more seriously, and have found great insight into what I do from these people.
-- Clive Barker
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Poelzig |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:05 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
| In other words; ignore the stupid parts you don't like and pretend they aren't part and parcel of the whole. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber A
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 731
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › 93. Wow... I am sort of assuming you're making Liber AL an exception to this rather acid statement, but given previous posts, I'm not certain.
No. Regardless of whether or not he did, Crowley was perfectly capable of creating a text such as The Book of the Law all by himself - or presenting the ideas therein in another form - so the role of the claimed "praeternatural" in this process remains "trivial and insignificant" even if it were true. There was no new knowledge in the The Book of the Law; only the presentation was novel.
Yathaniel wrote: › Surely you do not discard Liber AL in such a manner or the Knowledge and Conversation in such ways? If not, I am interested in how you reconcile following the Law of Thelema without the ability to reach a full understanding of Will, if you believe such practices to be merely supernatural nonesense.
I can't really answer this last part, because the idea of there being some connection between the Will and the supernatural is so outlandish that I really don't know what I'm supposed to be reconciling. I'm afraid you're bandying about terms such as "Will", "Knowledge and Conversation" and "Thelema" without really having a good grasp over what you mean by them. As a serious question, how, for instance, do you think that performing rituals actually physically causes you to discover your Will? How do you think it all actually works? Other than just taking what you think Crowley's word is for it, what do you actually think is going on when you do this stuff?
The idea that one must believe in supernatural entities in order to do anything at all, far less to obtain a knowledge of what one really is, is an obnoxious and risible one. As I said in my other post, if this isn't plain to you already, I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you otherwise, other than trying to point out that sane and sensible people in the twenty first century just don't believe in wild and fantastic tales of the supernatural. There are no gods, demons or angels, you can't make yourself invisible by performing a ceremony, tarot cards don't predict the future, dowsing doesn't work and cats don't go to heaven. If you actually do believe any of this stuff, I'm at a loss to imagine how you ever expect to discover any truth about your self. I'm not trying to be mean or insulting, here, just trying to explain that you really don't have much of a hope of discovering any kind of truth for as long as you let yourself seriously believe this kind of weird, anachronistic and delusionary piffle. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Poelzig |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Lib
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:29 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
| Erwin, why bother with "Thelema" and all it's baggage? Why not just cut to the chase? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Poelzig |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Lib
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
Ps. Don't take my dying cat hallmark condolence card comments to heart.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Iskandar |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Lib
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
Posts: 367
Status: Offline
|
|
| Yathaniel, it appears I was not clear. I am referring to your whole argument as a straw case because it appears to me that you are building a sort of a conspiracy theory involving OTO's attempt to undermine the role of Aiwass in Thelema (or some other words to that effect), where nothing substantial can give credence to your position, except a sole episode involving Crowley's name on a spine of a copy of Liber AL. (By the way, is Crowley's name also on the title page of that edition? Please, do not confuse the title page - which is the 'official' page - with the cover.) I am not disputing the truth of your claim that the edition, which seems to be a source of irritation for you, does indeed exist. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 731
Status: Offline
|
|
Poelzig wrote: › Erwin, why bother with "Thelema" and all it's baggage? Why not just cut to the chase?
Well, I've been asked that before, and I don't have a great answer other than that I'm familiar with it and know a bit about it, and that there's a good amount of interesting and sometimes illuminating writing out there by Crowley on the subject. I think the ideas can - and in many places do - exist entirely separately from the aesthetic of Thelema itself, I'm not particularly attached to that aesthetic and I wouldn't particularly miss it if it went away, but for the moment there's a fair amount of terminology which it's relatively easy and convenient to adopt instead of uselessly inventing new words for everything. Any "baggage" only remains so for as long as people are unwilling to put it down. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Poelzig |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:50 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Poelzig wrote: › Erwin, why bother with "Thelema" and all it's baggage? Why not just cut to the chase?
Well, I've been asked that before, and I don't have a great answer other than that I'm familiar with it and know a bit about it, and that there's a good amount of interesting and sometimes illuminating writing out there by Crowley on the subject. I think the ideas can - and in many places do - exist entirely separately from the aesthetic of Thelema itself, I'm not particularly attached to that aesthetic and I wouldn't particularly miss it if it went away, but for the moment there's a fair amount of terminology which it's relatively easy and convenient to adopt instead of uselessly inventing new words for everything. Any "baggage" only remains so for as long as people are unwilling to put it down.
I strongly agree with your writings that I have read.
The comment was not intended to be insulting or antagonistic, but I do think surprise or contempt is misplaced considering the amount of time and material Crowley devoted to ritual, mythology, and ideas that lend themselves to absurd assumptions to an absurd degree, not to mention the "image" of ritual robes, magic circles and uniforms dripping with masonic insignia that attracts the majority of interest in the first place.
..... I won't even mention the retarded baggage that comes from proxy association by "rock stars." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Poelzig |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the autho
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:52 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
| Point being; what do you expect? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Poelzig |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the autho
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:54 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
Also, I'm not categorically bashing Crowley, or his use of symbolism and/or ritual - I find some of it inspirational and useful.
But it doesn't surprise me that it attracts flakes like moths to a bug-light. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Los |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:58 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 337
Location: NY
Status: Offline
|
|
93,
Yathaniel wrote: › Secondly, can one really do their Will, to the degree a Thelemite aspires to without involving oneself in the type of ritual that it seems is looked down upon by some, for it's lack of "reason". Yes. "Do what thou wilt" is no more than an injunction for the stars to shine and the grapes to grow, as Crowley once put it.
The will is nothing more than the course of action best suited for the individual by nature and nurture. Nowhere even does Crowley state that ceremonial practices are necessary to accomplish one's will. Accomplishing the will takes introspection, a rational evaluation of one's life (the practice of the diary, for starters, is a huge help), and a willingness to explore one's talents, inclinations, and abilities. Meditation, the process of "turning off" the chatter of the conscious mind, is typically very helpful as well. Certain kinds of "energized enthusiasm" can be helpful -- and these include the kinds of poetry and metaphor found in ritual, but not exclusively.
I would say that the vast, vast majority of people who have done their wills on earth have never even heard of the word "Thelema."
Quote: › If you take Aiwass out of the picture, and you rob the Thelemite of the ability to even determine Will fully by K&C, let alone seek to accomplish it per Liber AL Vel Legis. Unless there's a way to accomplish K&C without the mysticism that Crowley and others have believed is necessary. I don't think anyone here is suggesting such a thing, however... Well, it *is* possible to accomplish your will without being a mystic. As Erwin correctly pointed out above, Crowley selected the term "Holy Guardian Angel" mostly because the term is so absurd and idiotic that no one would take it literally. It's just a metaphor for one method of attaining.
Your mistake is that in seeing Thelema as contingent on supernatural beings, you are making it a "revelation" that cannot be ascertained any other way. Why do you accept Liber AL and not the Bible? Why not the Vedas? Why not the Book of Mormon? (Would Joseph Smith really lie to us? The answer: yes)
What makes Liber AL special? On what criteria do you accept this revelation as real and another as unreal?
If you're just believing in the Book of the Law because you like it, or because it "speaks to you," then that's not really a criterion for determining truth at all.
If, however, you accept the Book of the Law because its essential message is true and can be ascertained through other methods (like a rational inspection of reality, not fantasy), then you don't need to have faith in anything. You don't need a revelation. It's simply true.
Anyway, I'm signing off now -- keep doubting, even if thou doubtest all.
93, 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Los |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 05:03 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 337
Location: NY
Status: Offline
|
|
Reading it over, I don't think I was very clear above. What I meant to say was that treating Liber AL as a revelation gives you no basis on which to accept it as true; treating Liber AL as a work of confirmation (that confirms truths we can discover in other ways) gives you a sound basis for accepting it.
I hope that came through clearly. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 05:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 731
Status: Offline
|
|
Poelzig wrote: › The comment was not intended to be insulting or antagonistic, but I do think surprise or contempt is misplaced considering the amount of time and material Crowley devoted to ritual, mythology, and ideas that lend themselves to absurd assumptions to an absurd degree, not to mention the "image" of ritual robes, magic circles and uniforms dripping with masonic insignia that attracts the majority of interest in the first place.
My point is that Crowley also devoted a fair amount of time to mountaineering too, but nobody confuses this with Thelema. In the extended commentaries to The Book of the Law, for instance, there's really hardly anything in there about ceremonial magick at all. The two just aren't the same thing, and to suppose that one requires or includes the other is simply a mistake.
I'm certainly not "surprised" that people conflate the two, given the facts you mention, but I don't think those facts make "contempt" misplaced in this instance. It's not the performance of ceremonial magick that I take issue with - although it is undeniably rather silly - but a belief in the supernatural, and a false faith in the efficacy of such practices. With the single dubious exception of this question of "praeternatural" beings - with which Crowley only records a small number of relatively insignificant encounters - Crowley's writings give all the indications that he didn't actually believe any supernatural theories about any of this. His writings are liberally peppered with comments such as "although we can invoke him, we do not necessarily mean that he exists in the same sense of the word in which our butcher exists", "they seem to have thought that there was an Archangel named Ratziel in exactly the same sense as there was a statesman named Richelieu" and "by doing certain things certain results follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them." His explanations of the Abramelin operation - in Liber Samekh, Magick in Theory and Practice, and The Confessions, for instance - are extremely prosaic and of a psychological nature. Passages in The Confessions detailing infestations of his "black temple" and Boleskine with shadowy Abramelin demons really ought to read with an awareness of the tendency to ebullient exaggeration that dictation under the influence of cocaine might be expected to produce.
Basically, anyone who thinks Crowley really did believe he was evoking honest-to-goodness Goetic demons, for instance, just flat out hasn't read him carefully enough. He constantly used to go out of his way to warn people against believing spurious supernatural nonsense, which is why I continue to be bemused at the number of self-professed adherents who happily disregard that advice. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Poelzig |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the autho
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 05:17 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
| Good enough points - all taken. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the autho
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 08:29 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Erwin, and others.
This is quite obviously a discussion of much intellectual value. I must admit freely... I always accepted as a given any serious Thelemite or student of Crowley must on some basis accept the reality of what is often termed "supernatural". Clearly that is not so.
On the one hand, I don't like to put forward positions unless I am ready defend them to the death, and on the other, though I could continue the debate, it seems it would be more out of ego than conviction. Edwin, your mind is obviously very sharp, and your knowledge thorough. If this perspective is working for you, then as truth should be a matter of convenience, I say it is quite well and good, though I retain a bias against it. No offense, of course, as I have taken none from your position, either.
I have worked with these beings. I have spoken with them, and I have, to my mind, verified their authenticity. I can not, given my own experiences, view Aiwass as insignificant, or agree that "anyone who thinks Crowley really did believe he was evoking honest-to-goodness Goetic demons, for instance, just flat out hasn't read him carefully enough", for example.
Sure, we can get into the arguments over whether they are external or internal, and that I am certain has been done here more than enough already. I do not believe in a purely "psychological" model in this regard. Experience has demonstrated otherwise, though I am certain on some level, the internal and the external are one, anyway, and so such a thing is not an important distinction.
I do view these entities as being real in the same way that a particular incarnate man is real. As far as "realness" is concerned at least... Of course this is not based on my study of Crowleys writings, but based on the application of said writings. For me, at least, it is not all metaphor... Whether it is essentially internal and simply manifests in ways I am predisposed towards understanding, is debatable. This conviction (because this is what it is), I think, benefited me thus far, and ultimately that is the test, though it seem selfish and perhaps more pragmatic than philosophical. Pure intellectualism seems rather bereft of magick, to me, at least. Though, I suppose as you have argued quite eloquently, you can strip the magick out of Thelema and still have a working system. For you this may make it more efficient, for me it would deprive it of any interest beyond that of a libertarian club of atheists, and make the whole thing rather boring, killing much of my passion. I can't truly believe Crowley would have been comfortable with such a thing either.
The points about the HGA ring true, though frankly I do not rule out a quite literal-seeming experience, and personally lean towards it as far as the signifier one has genuinely attained. Crowley did not mean the term to be taken literally, as he says, I agree, but I've never taken this to mean the process is not one of actual literal communication with an entity seemingly possessing a nature and intelligence higher than oneself. I guess this again may be based on past experiences... Perhaps such an attainment can be achieved otherwise.
Edwin, you referenced Alan Bennett A while back, and I am not so familiar with him, aside from him being a buddhist. It sounds like an interesting account. Where can I find this?
As for the edition, if it is the only one of the many editions of Liberal AL to list Crowley's name, I still suspect there is significance to it. It's not a "conspiracy theory" per se. If I take a picture of the spine of a book and send it to, I suspect, ANYBODY and they read "HUFFINGTON THE BOOK OF TIME" what conclusion will they draw? I think they will conclude that Huffington is the author of The Book of Time". I suspect the only reason we are debating this at all is because some here have rather obvious biases seemingly out of their desire to "defend" against any critical thinking regarding the edition, due to their affiliation with the OTO. If this book were not, in their minds, somehow connected to their particular fraternity, I doubt they'd be making the statements they are about the irrelevancy of it. I don't see it as an OTO issue so much as an incompetence issue on the part of whoever designed the spine... Sorry, I am not going to fail to call a spade a spade, simply because of who may or may not have been involved with the design... Ironically, in this case, an EXPELLED member of the Order to begin with, and I'm starting to wonder if it is not queries like these and the mentality of the certain papists that culminated in said expulsion, in the first place.
Stupidity does not require conspiracy. The simple implication of the spine is that Crowley is the author. If this were any other book, or any other order, I doubt there would be such apparent internal difficulty in recognizing that. The conspiracy theory is on the side that thinks there must be no problems with the book or it's design based on who holds it's copyright, despite the design lending to confusion, misinterpretation, and being the only aberrant edition of the lot to have such a character.
I don't think it is a huge issue, but I do think it is a significant error that should not be repeated. The technical point made above about the outside of the book not being the actual cover is taken, and I agree. It's really just a matter of what logical conclusions are implied soley based on the outside of the book... as I said, I think it singularly implies Crowley as the author. "CROWLEY THE BOOK OF THE LAW" You see only the spine... What conclusions do you draw? I see only one here... Hey, if you think I'm offbase, feel free to tell me, but I really suspect this has become another "the Order is infallible" thing given some of the responses. I seriously doubt those responses would be the same if we were talking about a book that has an introduction from Motta or Grant preceding Liber AL and features their names on the spine in place of Crowley's. They are just as entitled to be considered the authors as Crowley is, which is NOT AT ALL. And this leads to the manifestation of the other side of the argument, which involves stripping Aiwass and everything else supernatural from the entire system... Perhaps not coincidentally. I am not sure.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the autho
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 08:44 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3191
Status: Offline
|
|
Well, Yathaniel, you really do seem to have worked yourself up over what you believe to be this unprecedented use of Crowley's name on the cover of The Book Of The Law...
Only, it isn't unprecedented at all, as you'd see if you spent a couple of minutes browsing the Bibliographia Thelemica on this very site. For example:
1973 - Published by Booklegger/Albion. Aleister Crowley named on cover.
1975 - Published by Kenneth Grant's publisher, 93 Publishing. Aleister Crowley on cover.
1976 - Published by Thelema Publications. Aleister Crowley claimed as author on Library of Congress data.
1990 - Published by Magickal Childe. Aleister Crowley on title page
Scans of the covers of these editions are in the Bibliographia. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the autho
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 08:47 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
| In speaking of past experience, just so nobody jumps on this, I am definitely not implying that I have attained such knowledge and conversation. I freely admit I have not, but as I said, I have spoken with entities I view as more external than internal, and suspect should I ever reach such a plateau, the experience would indeed manifest along similar lines. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the autho
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 08:59 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Paul,
I've found only the 1973 in the Bibliographia, which lies here:
http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/module-pnMe ... -356.phtml
But, I'll take your word on the others. It seems I was in error. It's not the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. I apologize for the claim... I wasn't convinced it was such a singular occurrence until getting feedback on it, when it would seem, I did go into a bit of a flight of fancy, and assume since nobody here (much better verses on the issue than I) was indicating it happened previously, it must not have. I appreciate you clarifying this. I suppose my feelings on the issue must remain the same, but I'm relieved at least that it's not a new trend indicating some shift in perception... Thanks for bearing with me on this, and pointing out I was incorrect in asserting it was unprecedented. I'm somewhat glad I was, though, of course my ego is a bit bruised, but I have only myself to blame. It's a good lesson to learn.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 09:02 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 796
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 09:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: ›
A few years ago I uploaded 60 or so different versions to the Galleries (not the Encyclopedia), you will find at least a dozen or so bearing Aleister Crowley on the title, most of them were not published by the OTO. Does that tell something about profit making?
93. Unfortunately I can not access those galleries (perhaps new user restriction). I am interested to see those, however. Maybe something can get worked out, or I will be patient. It simply states "Cannot login!" on each of those links.
60 or so different versions, you say... Well, that's quite amazing. Granted I had done a very thorough search, but I had not seen even one, let alone 60, and really sincerely believed it was the first time. Well, I feel stupid... I let my emotions cloud my judgment.
As for the profit making, though, the OTO, in my mind should be free to make whatever profit it likes... That was never my concern... Actually, though it is off-topic, as far as profit is considered there seems to be too little of it rather than too much. The dues structure alone should convince those who think OTO is simply profiteering, that it can not be the case. The OTO needs money to survive, let alone to accomplish it's goals. It also needs to build infrastructure, which with the current state of the dues structure seems unrealistic. I'd be the last person to complain of profiteering by the OTO... In fact, I'd like to see more profits. I'd like to see masonic-quality lodges springing up, and slick commercials and publications reaching the masses, and all these things definitely require financing. The books alone, and the low dues do not seem to be providing enough of the financial backing the Order could really benefit from.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 09:32 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3191
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › Unfortunately I can not access those galleries (perhaps new user restriction).
You need to be registered to view the Galleries - which, of course, you are - and you need to be logged in at the main site.
Odd that you can't see the links...
From the main page, click on Galleries in the main menu, then click on the Books album. You'll see the images that the_real_simon_iff very kindly uploaded so long ago. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 09:54 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: ›
You need to be registered to view the Galleries - which, of course, you are - and you need to be logged in at the main site.
Odd that you can't see the links...
From the main page, click on Galleries in the main menu, then click on the Books album. You'll see the images that the_real_simon_iff very kindly uploaded so long ago.
93 Paul,
Thanks.
It's working now. I'm not sure why it didn't previously.
This time I followed your instructions to get to the gallery, and seeing it let me in, I then went back and clicked the same links from the_real_simon_iff I had previously, and they are opening fine. Not sure why they were not working to begin with.
Definitely a wealth of information in here. I wish I had found this earlier.
These are really beautiful editions. Makes me envious.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 10:03 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
93 the_real_simon_iff,
Thank you for taking the time to post all those links, and of course to have uploaded so many great images in the first place.
Definitely appreciate your efforts. I actually had no idea there had even been that many copies and by so many different publishers. Have always sort of figured Weiser was pretty much it, with a few unofficial copies floating around in foreign countries. These galleries are quite amazing, and surprisingly I find these book scans even more interesting than the massive wealth of Crowley photos I've also just discovered on here.
Thanks again for taking the time with those. I know just copy/pasting that many links is a nuisance for one thing, let alone uploading all those.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Alastrum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 11:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 240
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm not going to join in the discussions about 'who' wrote 'what', as it's all been discussed here so many times before.
But I would like to add that, when a bookseller unpacks a book from the distributors, they do want to know where to file it on their shelves. As most books are shelved alphabetically, the absence of any name on the cover, especially on the spine, causes problems, especially for mainstream booksellers not familiar with the BOTL or Crowley. I have seen, in some shops, the BOTL filed after Z on the bottom shelf, and not with the 'Crowley' section. It seems to me to be merely a rather prosaic and practical means of ensuring that the BOTL is filed in bookshops along with the other books by Crowley, which is surely where any interested shopper would expect it to be.
Furthermore, when a bookseller orders titles from a distributor's warehouse, the warehouse staff need to know exactly where to find the titles ordered, and not waste time looking for books that might be filed according to a stacker's whim because they had no name on the cover.
I suggest it's all to do with modern mass bookselling methods, and nothing to do with establishing copyrights or precedents or conspiracies.
Of course, whether you agree with the idea that books, or any other product, are designed to benefit the distribution process more than the customers, is another thing entirely:) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the a
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 01:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 731
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › Edwin, your mind is obviously very sharp, and your knowledge thorough.
Why do people who argue with me have such a hard time correctly spelling my name? Is it a Freudian thing, or what?
Yathaniel wrote: › I do view these entities as being real in the same way that a particular incarnate man is real. As far as "realness" is concerned at least... Of course this is not based on my study of Crowleys writings, but based on the application of said writings. For me, at least, it is not all metaphor... Whether it is essentially internal and simply manifests in ways I am predisposed towards understanding, is debatable. This conviction (because this is what it is), I think, benefited me thus far, and ultimately that is the test,
No, that isn't "ultimately...the test" at all. A subjective and optimistic assessment of personal profit is not a sound basis against which to judge questions of fact and never will be, no matter how much the lucrative new-age industry might like to you to believe otherwise. Even if it were, you'd still have to demonstrate that taking an alternative conviction wouldn't benefit you even more, which you obviously haven't done. Since you admit below that you are "definitely not implying that [you] have attained such knowledge and conversation" I'd be interested to hear precisely what "benefit" you believe this "conviction" about the nature of the Holy Guardian Angel has brought you; having actual knowledge of such a thing clearly isn't included in that "benefit" as you freely admit.
Yathaniel wrote: › though it seem selfish and perhaps more pragmatic than philosophical. Pure intellectualism seems rather bereft of magick, to me, at least. Though, I suppose as you have argued quite eloquently, you can strip the magick out of Thelema and still have a working system. For you this may make it more efficient, for me it would deprive it of any interest beyond that of a libertarian club of atheists, and make the whole thing rather boring, killing much of my passion.
That's the problem with most occultists, so you're hardly alone. You want to believe in goblins, demons and unicorns because you think the universe would be a more "passionate" place if such things existed, and that's all the motivation you need. I disbelieve in them because they don't exist. As I said, I don't think anything I can say is going to convince you of the weirdness of this approach. Actual facts are just too "boring" to occultists.
Yathaniel wrote: › The points about the HGA ring true, though frankly I do not rule out a quite literal-seeming experience, and personally lean towards it as far as the signifier one has genuinely attained. Crowley did not mean the term to be taken literally, as he says, I agree, but I've never taken this to mean the process is not one of actual literal communication with an entity seemingly possessing a nature and intelligence higher than oneself.
So you agree he "did not mean the term to be taken literally", but you've "never taken this to mean" that it shouldn't be taken literally? Interesting.
Yathaniel wrote: › I guess this again may be based on past experiences...
That past experience of "definitely not implying that [you] have attained such knowledge and conversation", you mean? Again, that's some weird kind of experience to be basing these claims about that knowledge and conversation on, even if it weren't for that fact that it's your rational interpretation of experiences that leads you to generate conclusions like this, and not the experiences themselves at all (which you anyway imply haven't happened yet, which may be why you're having to "guess"). As I described a while back in Go-Go-Godel! this sort of thing always happens when people try to discredit the role of reason; they just - albeit sometimes unwittingly - use it as an excuse to let their rational conclusions go unchallenged by pretending that they are "experiential" ones somehow beyond the reach of rational criticism, and that experience has more explanatory power than reason does, when bare experience actually has no explanatory power at all.
Again, I'm not saying this to be mean, just to point out the sheer weirdness of your position.
Yathaniel wrote: › Edwin,
There it is again.
Yathaniel wrote: › you referenced Alan Bennett A while back,
Frank Bennett.
Yathaniel wrote: › and I am not so familiar with him, aside from him being a buddhist. It sounds like an interesting account. Where can I find this?
In The Confessions. There's a biography by Keith Richmond and selections from his diary edited by the same floating around somewhere out there, too. To cut a long story short, in Symonds' report of Bennett's diaries Crowley told him that KCHGA was "all a matter of getting the subconscious mind to work; and when this subconscious mind was allowed full sway, without interference from the conscious mind, then illumination could be said to have begun; for the subconscious mind was our Holy Guardian Angel" and it all clicked into place for him with spectacular effect. As I was saying to Poelzig, Crowley's writings on the subject are simply swimming with this idea, and with the sole exception of that one chapter from Magick Without Tears it's a mystery to me how anybody can undertake a serious study of Crowley's works and come to the conclusion that he thought KCHGA has anything whatsoever to do with talking to discarnate intelligences, "external" or otherwise. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the a
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 01:45 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 731
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › Though, I suppose as you have argued quite eloquently, you can strip the magick out of Thelema and still have a working system.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not "strip[ping] the magick out of Thelema" - I'm maintaining that the two were wholly separate to begin with, and that the conflation of them is a relatively recent error.
Yathaniel wrote: › I can't truly believe Crowley would have been comfortable with such a thing either.
Well, somebody around here - maybe Patriarch156 - can quote you a letter from Crowley's later life where he proposed doing just that with the OTO. See, that's the problem with "truly believing" stuff - it has an annoying tendency to be upset by facts.
Yathaniel wrote: › some here have rather obvious biases seemingly out of their desire to "defend" against any critical thinking
I think my irony-meter just broke. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not t
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 04:28 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin, 93.
Sorry about the name. I'm not a fan of Freud, but you might be on to something. Anyway, no disrespect intended.
When I mentioned past experiences, I was referring to communication with entities seemingly independent from myself. I anticipate knowledge and conversation would manifest along those lines, at least for me. I'm not familiar with the material in question you referenced implying the HGA is simply the subconscious mind, but I find it at odds with my perspective, of course.
I can not truly understand the type of intellectualism you are applying that sees anything outside the realm of ordinary day to day experience as superstitious nonsense. In much the same manner, I suspect, that someone who does not practice magick can comprehend the position of one who does, and has a conviction based upon that practical work. Perhaps I am wrong... Perhaps you are of the type who could see a demon literally materialize before you and smack you upside the head, and still be convinced it only a manifestation of your subconscious mind, and who am I to disagree with you? It seems though, that the majority of people I've spoken with in the past who hold positions similar to your own have never had the types of experiences that challenge one's conceptions or startle one to the type of faith, which aids in such operations.
You disagree with the truth should be a matter of convenience statement, but I think it is so, though I probably should have attributed that to Crowley rather than myself... I believe he stated it before I, though, can not recall his exact words. I think it is in Magick In Theory And Practice. For the magician, truth is fluid... I see no real issue with this, so long as it is effective. If one is to pray successfully, for example, one must have faith and belief that one's God is hearing those prayers. I've never had a successful magicial operation that involved a degree of doubt. Perhaps it is possible, though, I think certainly causes more harm than good. A scientific approach to magick is what Crowley was all about, not doing away with the concept entirely, as it seems you have done.
It seems rather close-minded to actually state with complete certainty that "goblins" and "unicorns", etc do not exist as a fact. Personally I have never seen one, but if I disbelieved in everything with your type of conviction that I had never seen, I suspect my world would be quite small. As far as "demons" go, I have had at least enough experience in that regard to say I believe in such beings, having spoken to them, and (I know this will seem ridiculous to you, as well) having used gematria to validate those conversations. Of course it could be explained as psychological in origin... I do not rule out the possibility, but frankly doubt my mind is capable of the type of knowledge so demonstrated, at least at this time. But the mind is a rather "occult" topic in and of itself.
Ultimately, on a pragmatic level, if I have a conversation with a being I perceive as likely external, for the purpose of getting x, and shortly thereafter x is obtained, I am satisfied. Sure, it would be interesting to know more of the hidden mechanization involved in such a process, but I doubt it can ever be determined one way or the other, and again, in higher states of consciousness the external and the internal are indistinguishable. This is also something I have experienced, and it was certainly as "real" a state of mind as any other I have had.
Sure one can scrutinize any beliefs and the rationale behind them from the most "supernatural" seeming to the most mundane. This laptop and the invisible wireless internet it is utilizing might all be in my mind, too, much in the same way those "demons" are. I am not a philosopher or a mystic truly... I don't hold firm beliefs on what is or is not real, one way or the other, but I aim for consistency in faith or lack thereof. I accept the telephone as a legitimate way of communicating and relaying information. If it did not work, I wouldn't. I hold goetia to the same standard. It works. How it works, I can not say... but that makes it "real" enough to be of practical value for me. This also applies to divination, which I continuously have positive results with... results that are statistically nearly impossibly to archive attributing such results to coincidence alone.
On one level I want to say, I think if you applied the more incomprehensible mystical aspects of Crowley's work in some small way, you might yourself see through experience it's value... But perhaps this is simply not possible. Magick is an art, as well as a science... You seem to have an extremely scientific mind, which is admirable, but this in and of itself does not seem enough.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
kidneyhawk |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not t
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 05:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 02, 2006
Posts: 1576
Status: Offline
|
|
Yahtaniel,
Nice post. There are too many lines you wrote which I could highlight and say "yes, so well put" but one in particular is worth noting:
Quote: ›
if I disbelieved in everything with your type of conviction that I had never seen, I suspect my world would be quite small.
This is not to pigeon-hole Erwin and disdainly declare that his world must be "quite small." I suspect that Erwin is quite happy with his world and its experiences. HOWEVER...the compelling drive to push it further, explore more, reach out and learn and GROW I see back of Crowley's repeated discussion of discarnate Intelligences. We laud exploration in the Natural Sciences and have benefited thereby. I'd suggest that Crowley and others who have taken up this particular area of research and exploration (such as Kenneth Grant) are driven by a similar impetus to go beyond the limits of present knowledge and experience, growing and expanding in the process. This growth impulse is quite natural. We can observe a seed perfectly "doing its Will" as it cracks open in the soil and begins stretching for the sun. The difference is that exploration of such seemingly "supernatural" phenomena poses the threat of new perspectives which may shake up the security of the old. Crowley stated that he saw the one chance for human beings to advance being the establishing of such contacts. Now Erwin may regard him as flawed in this perspective. But there was a REASON Crowley expressed himself thusly. He saw a value in the venture. And I think he remains to this day, in such regards, far ahead of the times.
"Thelema" does not compel one to be an "extraterrestrialist." But to be so, under whatever definition, may be the expression of a vital Thelemic impulse.
And Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is n
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 05:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 731
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › When I mentioned past experiences, I was referring to communication with entities seemingly independent from myself. I anticipate knowledge and conversation would manifest along those lines, at least for me.
That's an awfully big anticipation.
Yathaniel wrote: › I'm not familiar with the material in question you referenced implying the HGA is simply the subconscious mind, but I find it at odds with my perspective, of course.
Well, with the best intentions in the world, maybe you ought to get more familiar with it before you start trying to make pronouncements about what is or is not "Thelemic". You started off talking about how "unthelemic" it was to dispute the existence of "praeternatural beings" because such a belief is somehow inherent to Thelema and to the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, but then when presented with Crowley's own views that show the opposite you disregard them and instead go with "[your] own perspective".
Now, going with your own perspective is fine, but it is just your perspective (and one that you've admitted is not informed by the experience you're trying to discuss, just by others that you assume for no good reason are similar). It has nothing to do with Thelema. Furthermore, it is simply unproductive to discuss concepts such as "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel" on the forums of the Aleister Crowley Society using your own personal definitions which conflict very markedly from those that Crowley used. If Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel can mean anything anyone chooses it to mean, then discussing it is pointless.
Yathaniel wrote: › I can not truly understand the type of intellectualism you are applying that sees anything outside the realm of ordinary day to day experience as superstitious nonsense.
It is not "intellectualism" to demand evidence for factual claims. It is merely an absence of gullible credulousness.
Yathaniel wrote: › In much the same manner, I suspect, that someone who does not practice magick can comprehend the position of one who does, and has a conviction based upon that practical work.
Well, you're mistaken. I certainly can comprehend the position of someone who does this. I just think they are in error to draw factual conclusions based on subjective personal experience, no matter how strong it may appear. All strong subjective personal experience can tell you is that you've had a strong subjective personal experience. If you want to sensible make judgments on what that experience actually was, you have to leave the realms of fantasy and enter the world of reason. And, once more, if you are making factual claims based on subjective personal experience you are drawing rational conclusions. They may be incorrect and ineptly developed rational conclusions, but they are rational conclusions nevertheless, not "experiential knowledge". This is very important to understand if you don't want to be misled.
Yathaniel wrote: › Perhaps I am wrong... Perhaps you are of the type who could see a demon literally materialize before you and smack you upside the head, and still be convinced it only a manifestation of your subconscious mind, and who am I to disagree with you?
I would be even more suspicious of "demons" materializing before me than I am of other people claiming the same thing.
Yathaniel wrote: › It seems though, that the majority of people I've spoken with in the past who hold positions similar to your own have never had the types of experiences that challenge one's conceptions
It's hard to imagine a more backwards statement than this. It's precisely "the type of experiences that challenge one's conceptions" that cause people to doubt their pet beliefs about the supernatural, not the other way round. People who hold supernatural beliefs are only able do so because they have failed to sufficiently challenge them. That type of belief simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and this is precisely why faith-based types throughout the ages have been so careful to warn against the "dangers of reason" - to keep people happily in the dark where it's warm and cozy.
Yathaniel wrote: › or startle one to the type of faith, which aids in such operations.
See? You can't sensibly say that you hold the views that you do because you have "had the types of experiences that challenge one's conceptions" and then turn around in the very same sentence and say that you require "faith" to hold onto them. It's a ridiculous and contradictory position.
Yathaniel wrote: › You disagree with the truth should be a matter of convenience statement, but I think it is so, though I probably should have attributed that to Crowley rather than myself... I believe he stated it before I, though, can not recall his exact words. I think it is in Magick In Theory And Practice. For the magician, truth is fluid... I see no real issue with this, so long as it is effective.
Well, for one thing, if one regards truth as "fluid" then one never reaches a position where it can be determined to be "effective" at all. As I've said before, suppose I do a rain dance, and it rains soon after. Was that rain dance "effective"?
There is a world of difference between "effective" and "seems to be effective", especially when it "seems to be effective" because that's exactly what you'd like it to be. What you're proposing is to believe things to be true because you believe them to be effective, without ever being concerned whether they actually are true or whether they actually are effective. Now, you may think this is a productive way to proceed, but I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm for it.
Yathaniel wrote: › If one is to pray successfully, for example, one must have faith and belief that one's God is hearing those prayers.
A prime example. What is "pray successfully" supposed to mean? Anyone can physically pray, whether they believe in supernatural agents or not. If you mean successfully as in "actually communicate with a supernatural entity", you can't judge "success" as a function of how strongly you believed in the existence of that supernatural entity in the first place. It's absurd.
Yathaniel wrote: › It seems rather close-minded to actually state with complete certainty that "goblins" and "unicorns", etc do not exist as a fact.
I'm really not sure how you expect me to respond to this.
Yathaniel wrote: › Ultimately, on a pragmatic level, if I have a conversation with a being I perceive as likely external, for the purpose of getting x, and shortly thereafter x is obtained, I am satisfied.
Now that's a typical occultist excuse. This type of encounter is perfectly amenable to scientific testing, because a universe in which supernatural beings routinely intervene in the world to satisfy the mundane and trivial yearnings of any amateur magician who elects to call on their aid is an extremely different and an objectively observably different universe that one in which that does not happen. Yet in the entire history of time, nobody has been able to obtain even the flimsiest piece of evidence that that is the kind of universe we live in. If what you are claiming is actually true, and you have established its truth through observing reliable causes from specified effects, then you should be able to provide such evidence relatively easily. The unfortunate fact is that you won't be able to provide such evidence, because what you're claiming actually isn't true - you just believe that it is. As you said yourself, you have to have faith to maintain this kind of view, because if you start looking for actual evidence it's going to crumble. For the avoidance of doubt, it'll crumble under the evidence of your own senses if you resist the urge to randomly believe supernatural claims; one does not have to resort to charges of "consensus reality" in order to debunk such things.
Yathaniel wrote: › This also applies to divination, which I continuously have positive results with... results that are statistically nearly impossibly to archive attributing such results to coincidence alone.
Well, since you're offering, how about showing us some of those "statistical results" that you have tabulated? I'm sure the scientific community would be extremely interested if they do what you seem to think they do. If you really do want to defend your views of "Thelema" against a disrespectful onslaught, there's a good opportunity for you right there.
Yathaniel wrote: › On one level I want to say, I think if you applied the more incomprehensible mystical aspects of Crowley's work in some small way, you might yourself see through experience it's value...
I have. That's one of the ways through which I've come to these conclusions. It's impartially assessing mystical practice which has enabled me to conclude that 99% of mysticism is utter bunkum, that the kind of metaphysical speculations about the nature of reality it engenders are worthless and false, and that for the vast part it only has "worth" for as long as you keep telling yourself that it does. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of a top hat, you know. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is n
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 05:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 731
Status: Offline
|
|
kidneyhawk wrote: › This is not to pigeon-hole Erwin and disdainly declare that his world must be "quite small." I suspect that Erwin is quite happy with his world and its experiences.
This is a common bone of contention between religious adherents and skeptics in general, not just confined to occultists. Personally, I find the idea of a universe in which "gods" and other supernatural entities intervene in the mundane affairs of man to locate Aunt Maud's pet cat and to communicate obscure gematric wordgames to be an almost unimaginably paltry and small-minded one. If that really was the type of universe we lived in, it would be awful, not to mention the fact that if engaging in that kind of mindless silliness is what awaits us when we "advance as a whole" then we may as well give up now. The idea of a vast and impersonal physical universe that doesn't give two hoots for mankind or his petty quests for colourful psychic visions is far, far grander and more awe-inspiring, in my book, than one in which trying to communicate with discarnate spacemen assumes any degree of cosmic importance.
kidneyhawk wrote: › HOWEVER...the compelling drive to push it further, explore more, reach out and learn and GROW I see back of Crowley's repeated discussion of discarnate Intelligences.
I continue to be bemused at how an ever-increasing retreat into the further recesses of the imagination can possibly be regarded as anything other than the polar opposite of "exploration" and "growth". If one wants to grow they need to be looking away from the imagination, not into it. Retreating into a belief in the supernatural is what people who are unwilling or unable to engage with the actual world out there do; there's no "reach[ing] out" in that type of approach. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is n
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 05:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 731
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › If what you are claiming is actually true, and you have established its truth through observing reliable causes from specified effects,
Switch "causes" and "effects" here, obviously. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 29° 
: 
in 22° 
: Anno IVxvii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
