So this was an off the cuff idea. Most of my topics don't go anywhere (see, Physics and Thelema - too vague perhaps?)
At any rate,
I have been ruminating on and off, with much cud, about how Crowley was an earth shaker, deal breaker, woman taker and all around counter-culture man, in his day.
Then I got to think about what has changed since circa 1900 to 1940 and what has stayed the same?
What has changed in 'counter culture' and what is accepted now?
This was a dialogue that was had in the '60's I am sure. And now I thinking about the naughty 20's.
It's not the swinging Twenties, maybe it should be the shitting Twenties due to all this government overreach.
At any rate, do you think that anything Crowley had done or advocated for in his life is still 'counter-culture' or do you think it has pretty much all been adopted?
Furthermore, what things do you see in modern life that Crowley was a pioneer to advocate?
Chris
If anything, none of it has been widely adopted. The world around us is more monitored, measured, and conformist than at anytime during the 20th century. The 1960s seem like a distant memory of a counter culture nirvana, prior to the advent of our computerized surveillance society. And the Abbey in Cefalu was nearly a century ago immediately after the Great War. Today is hardly a time that can be called a Thelemic paradise.
At a personal level, Crowley was part Charles Baudelaire, part Count of Cagliostro, with a touch of Richard Burton - basically a Victorian eccentric. A distinction must be made, however, between the man and his legacy. There are really three defining moments to Crowley's life: Cairo 1904, Algeria 1909, and Tunisia 1923. The women, the drug use, and the costumes - the Crowley theatrics - are entertaining, but not critical to understanding his legacy. Those three moments are also tied to three distinct places, which I believe triangulate a much more important truth about the man, and the creatures he came into contact with.
The 1960s seem like a distant memory of a counter culture nirvana
Yes, it is like the many legends of a lost Golden Age. Once upon a time ...
do you think that anything Crowley had done or advocated for in his life is still 'counter-culture' or do you think it has pretty much all been adopted?
I think much that AC did and advocated remains well outside the mainstream:
- Trans-gender folks continue to be the subject of enormous legal and social controversy; loving trans folks continues to be well outside the social mainstream;
- Similarly, being a male fond of passive anal sex remains very outside the mainstream, and renders a person fond of this subject to considerable social rejection in many places, and to criminal prosecution, with penalties including death, in much of the world;
- Smoking cannabis remains illegal almost everywhere on the planet (we don't all live in Colorado, Chris! And even there, simply lighting up in public can lead to arrest);
- The use of peyote is illegal in every country except for some religious use by Indians in the USA (and perhaps Canada, can't recall);
- Heroin (mostly legal in AC's day) is illegal everywhere in the world except Portugal (although Vancouver looks like decriminalizing soon).
Need i go on?
OOOOHH! I thought of another one: having a three-way with the room-service waiter on your honeymoon, and then making up a religion to get your wife to do that more often- not mainstream. Yet, anyway.
Need i go on?
No, no. You may stop (for my benefit at least).
I am an advocate for promoting the Aeon of Maat ... for any individual who can get there. As far a society in general, anywhere, the Aeon of Horus (and thus AC's input) are barely beginning. Osiris is still firmly (militarily) in charge everywhere we look.
Since the 90s, American teeny movies and TV series are full of occultism. The type of girl into witchcraft now would not have touched it with a barge pole 20 or 30 years ago.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I don't think the goat thing has caught on yet...
OOOOHH! I thought of another one: having a three-way with the room-service waiter on your honeymoon, and then making up a religion to get your wife to do that more often- not mainstream. Yet, anyway.
What's the problem with three ways?
On a similar note the institution of Marriage is outworn now.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
What's the problem with three[-]ways?
Nothing at all, but they remain outside the mainstream, as of 2021, 107 years after Rose and Aleister's honeymoon (should we include "Lucky Hamid", the room-service waiter, as a "honeymooner" too?)
And making up your own religion to get the wife to have more of them certainly is still very avant garde.
On a similar note the institution of Marriage is outworn now.
Outworn, flounted, ignored, and ridiculed (by some, or many) ... but guess what? The income tax people and the court perps will still levy heavy judgments if one violates the laws as inscribed on the books.
The Law of Thelems is Darwinian isn't it? That is, if you fail then see ya dodo! Too bad you never adapted! Adapted to what? To becoming the Star that you are.
Capitalism and its proponents ie the various conservative political parties of the West have that attitude of you're not a big shot? You can't afford health care? Too bad loser, see ya. Is that Thelema? No, the end of such restrictions are Thelema.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
christibrany: "... do you think that anything Crowley had done or advocated for in his life is still 'counter-culture' or do you think it has pretty much all been adopted?
Furthermore, what things do you see in modern life that Crowley was a pioneer to advocate?"
The "cake of light"-use of human body fluids advocated by AC in his Gnostic version of an Eucharist, is still "counter-culture" enough, to have been used in a "Clinton Campaign Linked To Satanic Rituals"-accusation:
"Clinton Campaign Linked To Satanic Rituals November 06, 2016" - - - http://choosing-him.blogspot.com/2016/11/clinton-campaign-linked-to-satanic.html
I modern life there is social awareness about sex tourism, a phenomenon that AC was a pioneer at practicing (for example in Algeria), if not openly advocating.
Crowley's sexual appetites were well known - he was after all a philanderer, bisexual, and a heavy recreational drug user. As far a Thelema is concerned, it is not clear that Crowley's lifestyle choices were necessarily aligned to it. We all just naturally assume that this is the case. Liber Al does actually mention the word wife, so there is some concept here of monogamy (albeit faint). I suspect furthermore that the creatures who actually authored the text are biologically more monogamous than us poor lowly Homo Sapiens. It is just a guess, but I think that these praetor humans are still trying to make sense of Earth as Planet of the Apes.
My earlier jest aside, it is my perspective that Crowley was a pioneer in exploring the psychology of comparative religions. I think he foreshadowed figures such as Joseph Campbell just as he drew from scholars such as Frazer. Within Crowley's Magic, the phenomenon of comparative religions was not merely a study but an ongoing practice intended to advance the individual (see 777, Liber Astarte etc). Scientific Illuminism (unscientific as it may be often played out) is intended to help the Magician/Initiate rise up and surf the wave of the collective human religious experience (or better, that which generates it!), the aim being a type of self-realization which transcends dogmatism, comprehends religion as a technology and manifests transformative personal result from direct experience.
Although we live in an age which has seen scholarship in these areas swooping past the available sources of Crowley's day, I don't think there is much of a vantage point here to “belittle the Beast” with regards to his general thrust. We remain in a world where seriously deranged dogmatism exerts lethal effects and people as a whole do not comprehend themselves or the world. This may lead into further discussion as to how the Aeon is doing as it tries to get off the ground but that's another topic. I don't know that Crowley's vision of what religion is and how to employ it has really caught on in a big, earth-shaking way. In this sense, his basic “message” (see his Theorems for Magick in MTP) remains fresh and visionary. Yes, there will be lots of great examples of people who flow and achieve along these lines-but I don't think this approach describes society as a whole esp. with the observable and inimical influence of dominant religious worldviews.
I think if you asked university students this question something like 2% would give a reasonable answer. Maybe 4% would actually have heard the name at a stretch. Even the 2% wouldn't be properly informed.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Those three moments are also tied to three distinct places, which I believe triangulate a much more important truth about the man, and the creatures he came into contact with.
the creatures who actually authored the text are biologically more monogamous than us poor lowly Homo Sapiens. It is just a guess, but I think that these praetor humans are still trying to make sense of Earth as Planet of the Apes.
I would be very interested in hearing a bit more about these "creatures," Faustian. It is curious as the official reception storyline has Crowley encountering Aiwass, the Minister of HPK (not a group or collective). You seem to indicate something of a company (perhaps a type of Elohim) as opposed to a singular personage or entity, a multiplicity of authorship.
Perhaps AL is an anthology. 🙂
@kidneyhawk my sense is that Liber Al has more than one author - probably at least three. The book is a testament to their culture - not necessarily ours. Perhaps, it is the opening salvo to a genuine conversation. Mythology is littered with references to them: the Djinn, Quetzalcoatl, the Thunder Birds, Malek Taus, the Nummo, Fuxi, and the list goes on. To quote Arther C Clark - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Towards the end of his life, even Crowley had come to realize that he had come into contact with some amazingly intelligent creatures.
my sense is that Liber Al has more than one author - probably at least three. ... Towards the end of his life, even Crowley had come to realize that he had come into contact with some amazingly intelligent creatures.
Or - if one is of the apparent majority of those Lashtalians who subscribe to the theory that Liber AL is the product of a "higher" part of Crowley's own consciousness - he was actually suffering from some sort of multiple split-personality syndrome?
Norma N Joy Conquest
he was actually suffering from some sort of multiple split-personality syndrome?
Actually, the trifold split is/was higher than the mere personality. All the religions and most of the philosophies suffer from this division/trivision at the highest levels: Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, Daddy-Sonny-Holy Spirit, the 3 Gunas, the three major officers of a corporation, etc.
Thank goodness there is a further, farther-out concept that transcends the trinity. It gives us hope for the treatment of triadal mental fragmentation.
Actually, the trifold split is/was higher than the mere personality. All the religions and most of the philosophies suffer from this division/trivision at the highest levels: Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, Daddy-Sonny-Holy Spirit, the 3 Gunas, the three major officers of a corporation, etc.
Thank goodness there is a further, farther-out concept that transcends the trinity. It gives us hope for the treatment of triadal mental fragmentation.
Although actually, Faustian had stated there were
probably at least three
(My emphasis - hence, "multiple".)
"Aiwass, thy (true) name is Legion..." ?
(for there are many),
N Joy
Actually, the ... split is/was higher than the mere personality.
Yes you're quite correct there, Shiva. In choosing the word I was thinking of the creator of the final material product of the writing involved wielding pen and paper (in this specific case, Liber AL; I suppose the topic would also bear some relation with those AA printing imprimaturs used such as VVVVV, To Mega Therion, Perdurabo etc as well.) I did also think of using the word "entity" instead, but a split-entity as a descriptive term referring to him struck me as being a bit 'clunky' so in the end I rejected it, and perhaps ineffectively compromised.
However, could you (or anyone else) suggest a more appropriate term for this composite (and in respect of the "split" angle)?
N Joy
Although actually, Faustian had stated there were
probably at least three
There always seem to be three (the triad or trinity). All those systems I mentioned (plus any more you can add) have a triadal foundation in the firmament. The followers then add more - saints, angels, antagonists, archangels, etc. Any system then multiplies until it is so complex that people get confused, forgetting the original source of all this multiplication.
I suppose the topic would also bear some relation with those AA printing imprimaturs used such as VVVVV, To Mega Therion, Perdurabo etc as well.)
Yes, your supposition reflects the truth of the matter. Multiplication is the rule, leading to greater and greater complexity. I would prefer setting Aiwass as the mouthpiece for the "entities" in Liber AL - then we could get down to arguing about whether they (any of them including Aiwass) are separate folk or simply aspects of AC's connection to the collective unconscious (the outer noosphere).
However, could you (or anyone else) suggest a more appropriate term for this composite (and in respect of the "split" angle)?
"Collective Unconscious."
@shiva I am going to go out on a limb here, but I do not think that these entities/creatures are part of some collective unconscious that Crowley tapped into, although they can probably be communicated with using a permutation of altered states and the right symbolic triggers. It is my belief that Crowley was selected, like John Dee before him, as a receptacle for communication, or that he inadvertently stumbled into them. Deep down, I have the sense that they are flesh and blood, much like us - with several million years of a head start. I think that they masquerade as occult entities, or as gods in our mythologies, and more recently as Aliens from another planet, but they are very much products of Mother Earth. The recent signals coming from Proxima Centauri (our nearest star system) would indicate that when it comes to space travel, they did not get very far from the apple tree before giving up on the whole enterprise altogether.
I have the sense that they are flesh and blood, much like us - with several million years of a head start.
Well, yes, you are out on a limb here - with lots of other people on the same limb. Rejoice, for you are not alone. On the limb on the other side of the same Tree are those who hold this stuff to be included in the human unit. Which limb is true? They (the entities) are either objective or subjective ... but which?
Crowley himself wrote that they were internal, but that it was more convenient to view them as outside entities. (see Book 4 - Part 3).
I, personally, out on my own limb, have one "fact" to assume that they are subjective archetypal components of our own minds: I have yet to contact one, or have one contact me, in any fashion that leaves any kind of objective proof behind.
Now I will admit that certain "entities" that appeared to be external have entered my mind. But later (often years later) they are seen as a projection of that same mind.
Either we are emanations from the (God) Source, and we are chips off the old hologram (thus containing the whole inside our cranii) ... OR ... we are fragments adrift in time-space that have no reflection of the true nature of reality within us, and there are intermediaries ("vast aggregates of experience known as "gods") between us and our Source. Which is it?
I hold to the internal view, but I am willing to concede to external (aliens, gods, angels) anytime any one of them sees fit to prove his or her independent status. Unlike Crowley, I am not willing to admit to "external reality" based on Qabalistic fiddling - this is simply linear thinking.
We don't know which limb to saw off and let it drop into the qliphoth, because both are abstract belief systems. So, while we're waiting for a definitive proof in either direction, I find it useful to follow the basic injunction ...
"Let him credit nothing unless it lies within the realm of his own experience."
Shiva: "Either we are emanations from the (God) Source, and we are chips off the old hologram (thus containing the whole inside our cranii) ... OR ... we are fragments adrift in time-space that have no reflection of the true nature of reality within us ...".
What about (KJV, Genesis 1:26) "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: ..."? Does it pertain to emanations OR to we are fragments with no reflection of the true nature of reality within us?
(I guess a Gnostic interpretation of Genesis 1:26 with demiurgic creators, leans towards 'we are fragmenet with no reflection of the true nature of reality within us'?)
(I guess a Gnostic interpretation of Genesis 1:26 with demiurgic creators, leans towards 'we are fragmenet with no reflection of the true nature of reality within us'?)
We might observe that this is only a portion of a Gnostic interpretation. The "Fall" entails a forgetfulness or blindness to Divine Origin (what we could call our "Divine Content" or "Divine Being"-what Shiva refers to in terms of a hologram). Gnosticism postulates Redemption via Gnosis. Gnosis of what? That very Divine Nature we were blind to.
Which is it?
Both/And.
In Seeing God, we Know God. And Knowing God, we are revealed as God (thus, no man sees the Face of God and lives; the sense of being "other" is reduced to the ashen pyramid pile).
The "Fall" entails a forgetfulness or blindness to Divine Origin
Right. But psychedelia wakes it up again - really fast. Some people get re-awakened without botanical or synthetic applications.
Regardless of how one wakes up, it comes down to this: When one is operating in the lower self (mind, vehicle), one is a separate being and thus just a fragment. When one is operating in the higher self (no-mind, no vehicle), one is the bigger picture and thus just a god.
the sense of being "other" is reduced to the ashen pyramid pile
Right again.
@shiva If I were to gander what these creatures are, my guess is a bird of some kind...
my guess is a bird of some kind...
I have had recurring images of birdmen. They are opposed by reptiles (including dragons). This duality sings through metaphysical history.
Winged beings,
sounds, appearances,
notions of being;
trances wandering biotopes,
clarifying obscurations,
inconceivable dimensions,
glorious magical webs,
dance
refracting.
The signifier becomes more important than the signified.
“ Welcome to the Desert of the Real “ and the ultimate spectacular experience.
I have had recurring images of birdmen. They are opposed by reptiles (including dragons). This duality sings through metaphysical history.
More like some sort of genetic archetype being that humans still have an amniotic sac as do reptiles and birds.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
More like some sort of genetic archetype being that humans still have an amniotic sac as do reptiles and birds.
I'd be willing to go along with this (your) proposition because is sounds (or reads) good. But my linear brain, being limited, cannot decipher the "genetic archetype" and the "amniotic sac" references. Can yo break it down and then expand on the different parts, so that even older folks can get a grip on the concept?
Regardless of where they come from (archetype, alien, god, or hallucination), when the birdmen appear, they are always accompanied by dragons or reptile-men. And they are always in opposition, often with a twirling engagement, like the yin-yang symbol of of ancient Chinese heathens.
I think this archetype/vision/encounter resides at a rather high-up frequency, but since it has a descriptive form, it is still "below" the higher trances wherein all form disappears.
More like some sort of genetic archetype being that humans still have an amniotic sac as do reptiles and birds.
I'd be willing to go along with this (your) proposition because is sounds (or reads) good. But my linear brain, being limited, cannot decipher the "genetic archetype" and the "amniotic sac" references. Can yo break it down and then expand on the different parts, so that even older folks can get a grip on the concept?
Regardless of where they come from (archetype, alien, god, or hallucination), when the birdmen appear, they are always accompanied by dragons or reptile-men. And they are always in opposition, often with a twirling engagement, like the yin-yang symbol of of ancient Chinese heathens.
I think this archetype/vision/encounter resides at a rather high-up frequency, but since it has a descriptive form, it is still "below" the higher trances wherein all form disappears.
Youi were talking 'alchemical plane' and I was talking chemicals and planes.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
a bird of some kind...
birdmen [...] opposed by reptiles (including dragons).
And what about dagonsfish (men) - who were there at the beginning of evolution (so why not also at the end)?
"Boop boop, dittum dattum wattum achoo"
N Joy
@jamiejbarter There are some Native American myths about how the Thunderbirds defeated the Reptilians
Youi were talking 'alchemical plane' and I was talking chemicals and planes.
I see. I am not familiar with these planes, but I guess we were describing the same thing from different viewpoints or making slight distinctions by levels/planes.
But here is the question: Are these archetypes or independent entities? If they are archetypes, then they are universally available for viewing and interaction by any human mind (if that mind can get into the archetypal realm/level plane).
But if they are independent, then they exist outside the collective human unconsciousness, and our chip off the cosmic hologram is not a refection of the whole ... and we are just fragments, with some fragments being smart enough or lunck enough to make an occasional contact with these separate beings.
Regardless of which is true, if they appear in any form, then they are being perceived by the linear mind, and thus are being interpreted below the abyss. But humans have the capacity to transcend form, to enter a state/realm where any concepts are no more. The birdmen and the dragons, the ufos, the aeons, the path (etc) are no more.
Have we transcended alien entities, or have we simply bypassed them? Or have we found some haven that has no concepts, yet all the while guys who look like birds are above and beyond us?
I repeat (again) that Therion said all this stuff is inside us, but that it is "more convenient" to pretend they are objective beings outside of us. Fine, but he only took this position in one (for sure) or two (maybe?) places, and all the rest of his life was devoted to "pretending" that there were praetor-human gods, or beings, who must be contacted as a last resort to save ourselves.
Well, which is it? Intero- or praeter- ?
Note: English words for praeter include besides, past, except, beyond, apart from, above, more, along, By and in spite of.
I see. I am not familiar with these planes, but I guess we were describing the same thing from different viewpoints or making slight distinctions by levels/planes.
But here is the question: Are these archetypes or independent entities?
Who cares? The Sun-Stars were created by the use of numbers first in Atziluth and you were there making it happen also. The debris of exploded Sun-Stars we call 'planets' but not all of them get that greenhouse-gas balance- thing down.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Who cares?
"Don’t care was made to care,
Don’t care was hung:
Don’t care was put in a pot
And boiled till he was done." (Anon; Trad.)
N Joy
not all of them get that greenhouse-gas balance- thing down.
It is interesting how (same) animals live in harmony with their environment; their waste products are distributed with hardly any trace and are biodegradable. Then we have humans, and I include all nationalities, who requires rivers to pollute and huge tracts of land for "landfills" (upon which they later build houses where people get mysterious illnesses).
The breakthrough into oil and gasoline sped things up, but the petroleum derivative that may well kill everyone is plastic.
boiled till he was done.
Eek! Please don't scare us further.
As far as "who cares?" goes, we were advised by AC, or one of his praeters, to avoid attaching objective reality to things we may see while doing our preliminary practices.
not all of them get that greenhouse-gas balance- thing down.
It is interesting how (same) animals live in harmony with their environment; their waste products are distributed with hardly any trace and are biodegradable. Then we have humans, and I include all nationalities, who requires rivers to pollute and huge tracts of land for "landfills" (upon which they later build houses where people get mysterious illnesses).
The breakthrough into oil and gasoline sped things up, but the petroleum derivative that may well kill everyone is plastic.
No I meant that the formation of planets and the aftermath are not usually conducive to provide for the conditions where life-forms can be sustained if DNA lands on them via an asteroid or is somehow brought together by activities on that planet fusing Carbon with Oxygen and Nitrogen etc. The odds against are massive. In fact when life is actually formed it's the same odds as a lightning storm hitting a scrap yard and forcing/welding all of the random metal to weld together into 'making' a perfect passenger aeroplane. Perhaps interstellar radio-waves played a part in organizing the chemical elements to come together and form nucleotides.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
ie quantum entanglement and the unity of all energy/thought/being. Unity doesn't even begin to cover it.
Who cares?
"Don’t care was made to care,
Don’t care was hung:
Don’t care was put in a pot
And boiled till he was done." (Anon; Trad.)N Joy
are you a cannonball cannibal?
are you a
cannonballcannibal?
Take your pot pick...
N Joy
@dom so-called baby witches on tiktok is pretty cringe worthy but at least it is some stirring of energy in the otherwise soulless youth subcultures.
In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.
@dom so-called baby witches on tiktok is pretty cringe worthy but at least it is some stirring of energy in the otherwise soulless youth subcultures.
Are you sure you're replying to me there or were you on another thread?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@dom this this indeed seems to be the wrong thread, I have not seen that happen before when pressing reply, sorry about that.
In Prophetes Veritas Venit. Quod ambulas cum Thelema et Agape est semper fidelis pietas.
Furthermore, what things do you see in modern life that Crowley was a pioneer to advocate?
What a great idea for a group discussion.
I've given this considerable thought over the years, and not just Crowley but specifically Liber Al vel Legis, which offers some sort of finite driven predictions.
What's more, apart of this conversation amongst magickal minded folks over the past 50 years or so at least, there is and has been something of a "prophecy" somewhere floating out there with a "prediction" that Crowley (as a secret hidden teacher) launched "Liber Al vel Legis" as a magickal spell, to influence history within 100 years or so. Robert Anton Wilson was likely one of the biggest sources of this "rumor". RAW personally is who introduced me to Crowley amongst many other interesting ideas.
I believe the promise was something along the line of "we would all become Buddhas within a century" because of Crowley.
2004 came and went and all we got was a war in Iraq, rats.
Sorry, I digress a little bit.
Is there historical predictive power in Liber al vel Legis? Did it really predict WW2? If so, how was it able to predict this event and its relevance to initiates?
If it is, and the book is something close to what many claim it to be, then it can be judged based on what historical events it can predict, without getting into what caused those events.
Crowley had access to I believe the number was around "80" of the most influential artists and intellectuals of his day. Even Betrand Russel was discovered to have ordered the entire set of "The Equinox" (fearing the collapse of his "principia mathematica" and the philosophical implications of that are incredibly influential in Western academic thinking).
If we view Crowley as really the pioneer of viral marketing, it may give us insight into what the roles of any initiate, big or small, is in society, that of civilization building through the arts and sciences.
Sometimes building a new civilization requires destroying an old one.
The third chapter, if historically predictive, would give us some pretty powerful alchemical metaphors to appreciate the impact of the emergence of social media, itself a very new aeon type phenomenon with psychological repercussions that are just now being fathomed by every institution in the world about right now.
Did Liber Al predict something like a Trump too?
Fyi, Trump repulses me beyond words, this is not meant to stir up any political conversation unless it is historical context only.
Anno 117, Sol in 0° Aries, Luna in 24° Gemini
Dies Solis, March 21, 2021 e.v., 12:06 AM
I need your help. I've watched one episode of the South Park where the authors have presented the residents of San Francisco (or San Narcissco?) as the people who collect their own farts in the small perfume bottles, and then sniff the perfume of the said farts from time to time -- in fact, pretty often. The authors of the South Park also called these people "a smug people."
Please, tell me is there any truth in the South Park's presentation (apart from the academic and/or artistic freedom, of course.) My brother (a son of my late aunt) lives in SF, but he has no time and/or will to talk with his family, so I can't ask him, and, believe it or don't, I've noticed, (over the years, when we've met a few times), he has become a very smug person.
Regarding the topic of this thread, IIRC @ignant666 considered AC a some sort of a smug (for AC hadn't drunk beer); some people considered myself a smug, especially during a few years when I've been the member of ©O.T.O (21 to 27 yrs old); and, also, I've noticed some (many?) people consider a smug anyone who perform the Great Work, in whatever form (i.e. anything except the x-tianity). Poor OHO has been even called Hyperanus Beta by some people, including myself.
I don't consider Robert Anton Wilson and/or Timothy Leary a smug. And the list goes on...
Monkey Banana