Notifications
Clear all

Is Kenneth Grant a Thelemite?  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2010 5:31 am  

I know that there have been many discussions of Kenneth Grant and his work here. There have been many reviews of his work, and discussions of whether he was a leader of a so-called "OTO" organization. Most of the negative reviews of KG's work have been largely based on the evaluation of his work as being "unorthodox", or even "insane". Now, to the degree that his work is so self-evidently 'imaginative', I wonder how so many people can judge him as not-thelemic? There has also been the accusation that all of his "followers" are prone to knee-jerk reactions that portray such accusers as "not understanding enough" about his work. I think this is so, because these people (the accused), might think this is a judgment that he is not Thelemic, which cannot be reasonably seen as true, since, who can know what someones True Will is?. I, as someone who is not a member of the Order, but is interested in his work and believe it to be as valid as ANY other Thelemite, would like to know how anyone who is a Thelemite could possibly assume that he isn't one...considering the amount of work he has produced in the capacity of his True Will, and the fact that he has never told anyone to do anything that he has written about.. To me, this comes down to a very fundamental disagreement about Kenneth Grant...that some think he is not a Thelemite at all, and some don't see how he couldn't be one. I will leave the arguments to the former end in the hands of those that can just keep chopping away at what must look to them like a very, very, very large-looking hair. 😉

Andrew


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2010 7:48 am  

Hi Andrew

I know I've been a trifle annoying with my insistence that any discussion of Thelema needs to clearly enunciate whether we're talking the sort of Crowleyan orthodoxy represented by OTO/AA, as opposed to the adjective "thelemic" which is a vastly broader concept and which, to my mind, is as likely to include wiccans, satanists, chaotes and anyone out there "doing their own thing" by consciously seeking and acting by the lights of their individual Wills.

Not simply an issue of pedantry - depending on which you mean, the answer may be very different.

One way or the other, there is possibly a more illuminating "counter-question": is anyone a "Thelemite" who assumes they can ask if anyone else is a "Thelemite"?

Lucifuge


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
30/06/2010 10:01 am  
"Lucifuge" wrote:
I know I've been a trifle annoying with my insistence that any discussion of Thelema needs to clearly enunciate whether we're talking the sort of Crowleyan orthodoxy represented by OTO/AA, as opposed to the adjective "thelemic" which is a vastly broader concept and which, to my mind, is as likely to include wiccans, satanists, chaotes and anyone out there "doing their own thing" by consciously seeking and acting by the lights of their individual Wills.

Considering that Crowley's work spans many decades and embraces so much diversity, I'd be interested in your enunciation of "Crowleyan orthodoxy".

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2010 10:28 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Lucifuge" wrote:
I know I've been a trifle annoying with my insistence that any discussion of Thelema needs to clearly enunciate whether we're talking the sort of Crowleyan orthodoxy represented by OTO/AA, as opposed to the adjective "thelemic" which is a vastly broader concept and which, to my mind, is as likely to include wiccans, satanists, chaotes and anyone out there "doing their own thing" by consciously seeking and acting by the lights of their individual Wills.

Considering that Crowley's work spans many decades and embraces so much diversity, I'd be interested in your enunciation of "Crowleyan orthodoxy".

Best wishes,

Michael.

Do I need to?

Anyway, without wanting to play semantics (the odious inevitability, it seems, of Thelemic discourse) I'd just invite you to reconsider my original post, I'm confident the answer is already, at the least, implicit therein. I could say that Thelemic orthodoxy represents Croweyanity, or I could just refer back to the loose definition already provided, that being the practice and rituals of Crowley's established orgs (A.A. and O.T.O)

Lucifuge


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4503
30/06/2010 2:07 pm  
"adav93" wrote:
I ... would like to know how anyone who is a Thelemite could possibly assume that he isn't one ...

A "Thelemite" is anyone who is doing their Will or is attempting to discover that Will. Technically, "Thelemite" refers to people who have accepted The Book of the Law and are performing actions in accordance with it. Some (many) schools of thought refer to our concept of Will as "Intent," and they never mention "Thelema," and maybe don't even know what the word means.

Along these lines, some magicians are surprised to find out that WILL is a state of consciousness and not a specific act or project.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2010 3:01 pm  

I enjoy KG's work & while I find much of it to be unverifiable assertion, he is, as someone characterized it, "imaginative"! However, since he is (I believe) the ONLY living person who's writing on Magick who actually received personal instruction from 666 (how much is always a source of lively debate!) I feel that he at least desrves respect as an elder, as well as a prolific & original writer.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2010 3:44 pm  
"Lucifuge" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Lucifuge" wrote:
I know I've been a trifle annoying with my insistence that any discussion of Thelema needs to clearly enunciate whether we're talking the sort of Crowleyan orthodoxy represented by OTO/AA, as opposed to the adjective "thelemic" which is a vastly broader concept and which, to my mind, is as likely to include wiccans, satanists, chaotes and anyone out there "doing their own thing" by consciously seeking and acting by the lights of their individual Wills.

Considering that Crowley's work spans many decades and embraces so much diversity, I'd be interested in your enunciation of "Crowleyan orthodoxy".

Best wishes,

Michael.

Do I need to?

Lucifuge,

A long-standing forum member said, quite politely, that he would be interested in hearing what you mean by your (bewildering) term "Crowleyan orthodoxy".

Forgive me but unless I am mistaken, we appear to be on a forum, having an open conversation. I presume that, like many of us, you were interested in communicating with other people. One of those just asked politely for you to clarify a term which (if I may say) makes absolutely no sense to me as well.

I will not assume that your familiarity with Crowley's life and work is as limited as your statement initially suggests, and that it is a simple matter of clarification. Therefore, I'd like to second his query, too, in the hope that something positive can come of the discussion - an understanding of your term, for a start - rather than a time-wasting exercise in ego management, such as unfortunately sometimes occurs in textular forums such as this where wires can become unnecessarily crossed, thwarting the no doubt best wishes of both parties towards an increased understanding of the points of view of other people.

I look forward to learning more about what you mean by this presently meaningless expression, so that the discussion may perhaps produce something other than sighs of quiet disappointment at the repeated thwarting of community.

Please forgive me, though, if I have misread your tone.

Anyway, without wanting to play semantics (the odious inevitability, it seems, of Thelemic discourse) I'd just invite you to reconsider my original post, I'm confident the answer is already, at the least, implicit therein. I could say that Thelemic orthodoxy represents Croweyanity, or I could just refer back to the loose definition already provided, that being the practice and rituals of Crowley's established orgs (A.A. and O.T.O)

Lucifuge

Your original post does - despite your statement - look like you do in fact want to "play semantics". I will not let this affect our discussion, though, as long as you realise that that's what you're doing by presenting a flaky term. Although, I must say, being unconscious of just that one particular fact (for a start!) forebodes the quality of discussion which it may appear - accurately or otherwise- which you intend to frame by such a term.

On that basis, I reiterate the query regarding your initial remarks, and would like to add some of my own.

Firstly, OTO/AA no longer represents "Crowleyan Orthodoxy" in any meaningful sense (if it ever did, and if it was ever meant to, represent anything called "Crowleyan orthodoxy" -- as opposed to Thelema -- are two more questions to add).

There is for example no longer any "Crowleyan" authority in Crowley's most significant order, the AA, as has been demonstrated in the A.'.A.'. Succession, or failure thread, the A.'.A.'. membership thread, and elsewhere. And when you say "OTO", it's perhaps best to bear in mind that there are, factually speaking, a number of these, not all of them Crowley's; and that the manner of evaluating legitimacy of such institutions are, among Thelemites, very many and varied; and moreover, as they did not begin, nor do they end, in the results of something as profane (or indeed vulgar) as secular litigation.

Secondly, "Crowleyan orthodoxy" as a term is something of an oxymoron, and I feel quite certain that were Aleister alive today, hearing those two words together would fill him with a deep sense of both embarassment and disappointment - on behalf of those using it, and moreso, on behalf of those poor desperate wretches who need to both construct and to cling to both patriarch figures, and orthodoxy; and then miscegenate these, to produce something bleak enough to identify with, in order to feel secure about what they think, feel, do, believe, and imagine - in other words, to die in their skins.

Best regards,
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2010 4:43 pm  

I'll peck a bit more at this straw man with my Hawk's head... 🙂

"adav93" wrote:
Now, to the degree that his work is so self-evidently 'imaginative', I wonder how so many people can judge him as not-thelemic?

Since when is "imaginative" necessarily synonymous with "Thelemic"?

Phooey on this OP, altogether. 😉


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
30/06/2010 6:45 pm  

If someone has accepted the Law of Thelema - epitomised most succinctly perhaps in The Book of the Law in phrases such as "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "Every man and every woman is a star" - then they are a Thelemite. Kenneth Grant accepts the Law of Thelema; ergo, he's a Thelemite.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2010 7:21 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
If someone has accepted the Law of Thelema - epitomised most succinctly perhaps in The Book of the Law in phrases such as "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "Every man and every woman is a star" - then they are a Thelemite. Kenneth Grant accepts the Law of Thelema; ergo, he's a Thelemite.

Best wishes,

Michael.

In these times, Michael, even such a simple statement as this is fraught with vagary and confusion. 🙂

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" means to one 'Thelemite' to act in accord with true Will, but to another it means to act in accord with conscious intent.

"Every man and every woman is a star" means to one 'Thelemite' that each individual is unique and unequaled, but to another it means that all are equal and interchangeable in essence.

These two fight on and on...

To a third 'Thelemite,' these seeming contradictions may be potentally complimentary, two sides of the same coin, as it were. The question would be only when and where it is appropriate to adopt which perspective.

Your thoughts?

(Trying to salvage a silly thread.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 12:38 am  

Thank you for the posts, people.

Lucifage, Camilion, others,

I intended the post to be somewhat open-ended, in light of a lot of the posts about Grant's work seem to me to revolve around his 'illegitimacy', or the nature of his work not having anything to do with Thelema, or Crowley for that matter. I do not agree with this, on the very simple premise that he is and has been doing his True Will, to my knowledge has accepted TBOTL, (even that is beside the point in my mind as being a 'prerequisite'), and even if his work holds little or no value to people who are not interested in it, or fail to find meaning in it, to me, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he is a true Thelemite, or an accomplished Magician, for that matter, which is nothing but a matter of opinion. All I'm saying is that he is just as valid a Thelemite and Magician as anyone else, even Crowley. I also don't agree with people that see it as an attack on Grant to criticize him, even though I myself have tended to do that sometimes. I wanted to have an open-ended discussion about this, to see if my (and others, I'm sure) perception(s) on whether there is such vitriol about Grant is really about his 'validity' as a Thelemite or Magician, because people fail to find meaning in his work, and see him as a charlatan. Maybe I was too broad, but I like where the discussion is going and can go, to further understand. 💡

Andrew


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 12:43 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
If someone has accepted the Law of Thelema - epitomised most succinctly perhaps in The Book of the Law in phrases such as "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "Every man and every woman is a star" - then they are a Thelemite. Kenneth Grant accepts the Law of Thelema; ergo, he's a Thelemite.

Best wishes,

Michael.

In these times, Michael, even such a simple statement as this is fraught with vagary and confusion. 🙂

(Trying to salvage a silly thread.)

Camilion, this is exactly what I meant by splitting hairs. Michael is exactly right, and I would even go further to say that someone doesn't need to accept ANYTHING to be a Thelemite. Maybe they don't consider themselves one if they haven't, but it is very evident in their actions and character, ie. Grant.

and I don't think this is a silly thread, but since you said so... 😥

Andrew


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 1:58 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
"Lucifuge" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Lucifuge" wrote:
I know I've been a trifle annoying with my insistence that any discussion of Thelema needs to clearly enunciate whether we're talking the sort of Crowleyan orthodoxy represented by OTO/AA, as opposed to the adjective "thelemic" which is a vastly broader concept and which, to my mind, is as likely to include wiccans, satanists, chaotes and anyone out there "doing their own thing" by consciously seeking and acting by the lights of their individual Wills.

Considering that Crowley's work spans many decades and embraces so much diversity, I'd be interested in your enunciation of "Crowleyan orthodoxy".

Best wishes,

Michael.

Do I need to?

Lucifuge,

A long-standing forum member said, quite politely, that he would be interested in hearing what you mean by your (bewildering) term "Crowleyan orthodoxy".

Forgive me but unless I am mistaken, we appear to be on a forum, having an open conversation. I presume that, like many of us, you were interested in communicating with other people. One of those just asked politely for you to clarify a term which (if I may say) makes absolutely no sense to me as well.

I will not assume that your familiarity with Crowley's life and work is as limited as your statement initially suggests, and that it is a simple matter of clarification. Therefore, I'd like to second his query, too, in the hope that something positive can come of the discussion - an understanding of your term, for a start - rather than a time-wasting exercise in ego management, such as unfortunately sometimes occurs in textular forums such as this where wires can become unnecessarily crossed, thwarting the no doubt best wishes of both parties towards an increased understanding of the points of view of other people.

I look forward to learning more about what you mean by this presently meaningless expression, so that the discussion may perhaps produce something other than sighs of quiet disappointment at the repeated thwarting of community.

Please forgive me, though, if I have misread your tone.

Anyway, without wanting to play semantics (the odious inevitability, it seems, of Thelemic discourse) I'd just invite you to reconsider my original post, I'm confident the answer is already, at the least, implicit therein. I could say that Thelemic orthodoxy represents Croweyanity, or I could just refer back to the loose definition already provided, that being the practice and rituals of Crowley's established orgs (A.A. and O.T.O)

Lucifuge

Your original post does - despite your statement - look like you do in fact want to "play semantics". I will not let this affect our discussion, though, as long as you realise that that's what you're doing by presenting a flaky term. Although, I must say, being unconscious of just that one particular fact (for a start!) forebodes the quality of discussion which it may appear - accurately or otherwise- which you intend to frame by such a term.

On that basis, I reiterate the query regarding your initial remarks, and would like to add some of my own.

Firstly, OTO/AA no longer represents "Crowleyan Orthodoxy" in any meaningful sense (if it ever did, and if it was ever meant to, represent anything called "Crowleyan orthodoxy" -- as opposed to Thelema -- are two more questions to add).

There is for example no longer any "Crowleyan" authority in Crowley's most significant order, the AA, as has been demonstrated in the A.'.A.'. Succession, or failure thread, the A.'.A.'. membership thread, and elsewhere. And when you say "OTO", it's perhaps best to bear in mind that there are, factually speaking, a number of these, not all of them Crowley's; and that the manner of evaluating legitimacy of such institutions are, among Thelemites, very many and varied; and moreover, as they did not begin, nor do they end, in the results of something as profane (or indeed vulgar) as secular litigation.

Secondly, "Crowleyan orthodoxy" as a term is something of an oxymoron, and I feel quite certain that were Aleister alive today, hearing those two words together would fill him with a deep sense of both embarassment and disappointment - on behalf of those using it, and moreso, on behalf of those poor desperate wretches who need to both construct and to cling to both patriarch figures, and orthodoxy; and then miscegenate these, to produce something bleak enough to identify with, in order to feel secure about what they think, feel, do, believe, and imagine - in other words, to die in their skins.

Best regards,
N.

Ah, I have been chastised! Reasonably, too, given my going forth to do my pleasure on the earth last night did include a dram or two to excess.

Nonetheless, despite your informed and eloquent defence of a co-"long serving member" I still do hold to my position. I do think my meaning is quite self-evident (or should be), and the progression of this conversation seems to bolster my disinclination to meander further into semantics. And to address your point of my having descended into playing semantics myself, perhaps I needed to further explain that I meant I did not want to engage in "further and unnecessary" semantics (yes, I am familiar with the term, and I am further aware of the difference, between playing semantics and providing tentative definitions of terms - but I acknowledge your concern regarding my knowledge of the term 8) )

As it happens, I am aware you know that I have further clarified this in another thread that you have already replied to, so I'm not sure I need to go into it further? I accept your feelings about the nature of a forum, and people's right to question; I hope you will accept others' disinclination to engage in the sort of discussions which tend to encourage, as you suggest, simple exercises in "ego management" and the parading of "credentials" and knowledge, Thelemic and otherwise.

I don't suggest you or Michael are doing that, but I've been a member of enough Thelemic forums to avoid peripheral issues where possible, knowing how they tend to become unnecessarily hijacked to just such pointless exercises. I'll let my initial definitions stand as they are, and just allow people to decide whether they "get it" or not.

I do happen to be a practicing Thelemite, a member of one of the groups which represents the "Crowleyan orthodoxy" as I have labelled it, (your well-informed opinions regarding this "orthodoxy" in relation to the OTO ad AA notwithstanding) and the terms I have used (right down to the "capital T" vs "lower-case T") are terms we often use to differentiate between the general adjective and Crowleyan org's and their tenets, with no confusion.

So, respectfully, rather than go into further detail regarding what I meant, I will assume that readers pretty much get what I mean. If not, they can, of course, disregard it as "flaky" gobbledygook.

Lucifuge


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 2:49 am  

Very well. So you do not agree that the purpose of discussion is communication, and are happy with continuing to use a meaningless term because you support a club which has constructed it and which by this embarassing means asserts its legitimacy.

Very well. I will leave you to your refusal to bother defining your demonstrably meaningless (and highly "unorthodox"), post-Crowleyan terms, as such a refusal to observe such a simple and reasonable request, in addition to the tone of your initial remark, confirms my initial feelings regarding the quality of discussion which you intend, or are presently able, to deliver.

Regards
N


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 4:02 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
Very well. So you do not agree that the purpose of discussion is communication, and are happy with continuing to use a meaningless term because you support a club which has constructed it and which by this embarassing means asserts its legitimacy.

Very well. I will leave you to your refusal to bother defining your demonstrably meaningless (and highly "unorthodox"), post-Crowleyan terms, as such a refusal to observe such a simple and reasonable request, in addition to the tone of your initial remark, confirms my initial feelings regarding the quality of discussion which you intend, or are presently able, to deliver.

Regards
N[/quote

Heaven forfend I might have suspected any sort of hijacking of the thread to play out personal agenda! The noob not paying his dues to the "longstanding members" is a personal favourite, but I'm sure that wasn't anyone's intention, hmm? Anyway, shall we put aside this unnecessary jousting and allow people who wish to address the initial query to do so without distraction?

In the meantime, I do acknowledge the terms used are meaningless to you. And now, after re-reading your comments a bit more slowly, I might just go and read some A.E.Waite. I seem to have developed a hankering for his prose all of a sudden ...

🙂

Lucifuge


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2380
01/07/2010 4:19 am  

when I saw the title I thought this thread was silly too. but I also see your point in starting it. so no hard feelings 🙂
of course KG is a thelemite . one of the most interesting and enlightening alive today in my humble opinion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 5:51 am  

Lucifuge,

Funny you should mention "personal agendas" - I can't help but see one in your posts in this thread, despite my initial explicit reluctance to do so. Not that that is a problem - everyone has an agenda, I suppose.

Ditto your accusation of "hijacking" the thread - a favourite protest of those who have attempted unsuccessfully to do so themselves ... and who feel that their statements are somehow immune from response or critique. If you put something out there, expect a response. I know I always do :D.

Despite what you have professed, communication is, in fact, a two-way street (unless one is deaf or mute, a curiously popular combination these days, in certain quarters, sadly).

I agree that many forums suffer from pathetic noob-bashing, and my comment about your reaction to the as-yet-unanswered 😉 question posed by Michael was in no way meant to emphasise "noob"hood on your part, although the flaky content and strangely defensive tone of your remarks reinforces any prejudice which may have attended this fact.

I would feel the same way if anybody at all was addressed in a similarly odd and unwarranted fashion, whether noob or veteran, in response to a perfectly reasonable question put politely and sincerely.

So - the term "Crowleyan orthodoxy" remains meaningless, as I suspect it will forever. Along with the place of such a peurile conception within Thelema.

kind regards
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 5:57 am  
"christibrany" wrote:
when I saw the title I thought this thread was silly too. but I also see your point in starting it. so no hard feelings 🙂
of course KG is a thelemite . one of the most interesting and enlightening alive today in my humble opinion.

Thanks, Chris,

Perhaps I made the title too easy to brand as "silly". I know that Kenneth Grant is a Thelemite. It's so painfully obvious that I wanted to understand more about how anyone could think otherwise. Many people claim that he has NOTHING to do with Crowley OR Thelema. I want to know why, and I want to marvel at the hair-splitting semantics that people use to discredit him. If I can learn anything in the process...that's what I'm here for.

😈

Andrew


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 6:33 am  

One can never say truly and completely what anyone or anything "is", but only what it does. I'd say that if someone practises Thelema, then ipso facto they "are" a Thelemite.

How do we define "practising Thelema", might be a question worth chewing on.

For what it's worth, I can think of nobody whose thought has taken Thelema further along the process of sense, maturation and magico-mystical potency than Kenneth Grant, personally speaking (and only personally speaking).

Whether or not he "is" a Thelemite is not my business.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 6:41 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
I'll peck a bit more at this straw man with my Hawk's head... 🙂

"adav93" wrote:
Now, to the degree that his work is so self-evidently 'imaginative', I wonder how so many people can judge him as not-thelemic?

Since when is "imaginative" necessarily synonymous with "Thelemic"?

Phooey on this OP, altogether. 😉

Camilion,

I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that Magick is almost completely dependent on 'imagination', at least any kind of creative Magick? Thelema is synonymous with Will, and if your Will is to be creative in your practice of Magick...then I ask again, how can anyone judge that as non-Thelemic? And what in the hell does "phooey on this altogether" mean? (I may be American, but I'm always willing to learn) 😉

Andrew

This is all so simple, I'm having so much fun! 😛


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 6:54 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
One can never say truly and completely what anyone or anything "is", but only what it does. I'd say that if someone practises Thelema, then ipso facto they "are" a Thelemite.

How do we define "practising Thelema", might be a question worth chewing on.

For what it's worth, I can think of nobody whose thought has taken Thelema further along the process of sense, maturation and magico-mystical potency than Kenneth Grant, personally speaking (and only personally speaking).

Whether or not he "is" a Thelemite is not my business.

Noc,

You have answered my question, whether or not personally. However, how we "define" practicing Thelema is actually a big part of what I am asking about here. The way KG practices Thelema, IMHO, is to write about, mainly, his and others' experiences in the New Isis Lodge. His writings of these experiences have seemed to provoke many people into belittling his contribution to Thelema, because they simply aren't interested, or don't find any personal meaning in it. I don't understand this, which is why I find it fascinating. There are many people who do find it their business to make that judgement, and I just can't see how they can!

Anrew 😀


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 213
01/07/2010 6:55 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
If someone has accepted the Law of Thelema - epitomised most succinctly perhaps in The Book of the Law in phrases such as "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "Every man and every woman is a star" - then they are a Thelemite. Kenneth Grant accepts the Law of Thelema; ergo, he's a Thelemite.

Best wishes,

Michael.

In these times, Michael, even such a simple statement as this is fraught with vagary and confusion. 🙂

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" means to one 'Thelemite' to act in accord with true Will, but to another it means to act in accord with conscious intent.

"Every man and every woman is a star" means to one 'Thelemite' that each individual is unique and unequaled, but to another it means that all are equal and interchangeable in essence.

These two fight on and on...

To a third 'Thelemite,' these seeming contradictions may be potentally complimentary, two sides of the same coin, as it were. The question would be only when and where it is appropriate to adopt which perspective.

Your thoughts?

(Trying to salvage a silly thread.)

Which raises the question, if KG think himself to be a Thelemite and another individual thinks that KG is not a Thelemite, who gets the casting vote?

And does it matter?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 7:06 am  

(Trying to salvage a silly thread.)

Which raises the question, if KG think himself to be a Thelemite and another individual thinks that KG is not a Thelemite, who gets the casting vote?

And does it matter?

Paul, if you read this, I'm sorry for serial posting, this is my last one for the night.

Spike418,

Nobody gets a "vote". You are inadvertently making my point. And it DOES matter, because there are so many people out there excoriating Kenneth Grant for doing nothing but being a Thelemite. 🙁

Andrew Humbley 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 8:04 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
Lucifuge,

Funny you should mention "personal agendas" - I can't help but see one in your posts in this thread, despite my initial explicit reluctance to do so. Not that that is a problem - everyone has an agenda, I suppose.

Ditto your accusation of "hijacking" the thread - a favourite protest of those who have attempted unsuccessfully to do so themselves ... and who feel that their statements are somehow immune from response or critique. If you put something out there, expect a response. I know I always do :D.

Despite what you have professed, communication is, in fact, a two-way street (unless one is deaf or mute, a curiously popular combination these days, in certain quarters, sadly).

I agree that many forums suffer from pathetic noob-bashing, and my comment about your reaction to the as-yet-unanswered 😉 question posed by Michael was in no way meant to emphasise "noob"hood on your part, although the flaky content and strangely defensive tone of your remarks reinforces any prejudice which may have attended this fact.

I would feel the same way if anybody at all was addressed in a similarly odd and unwarranted fashion, whether noob or veteran, in response to a perfectly reasonable question put politely and sincerely.

So - the term "Crowleyan orthodoxy" remains meaningless, as I suspect it will forever. Along with the place of such a peurile conception within Thelema.

kind regards
N.

Sheesh fella, let it go! You don't get it, fine. You seriously don't need to, and I don't need you to.

I've been reading through the threads on this site, and fascinatingly, I read a reply that someone once wrote to you, as follows "This is hardly the first time you've gone on at great length arguing over the mere appearances of words instead of over the substance they represent, and that would be a real good habit for you to overcome."

I can't improve on it, and I have no interest in going to great lengths to argue over the mere appearance of words. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Thoroughly bored now, as I'm sure are the more intelligent subscribers to this forum. If you really must carry on, feel free to private mail me.

Lucifuge


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 8:15 am  
"spike418" wrote:
Which raises the question, if KG think himself to be a Thelemite and another individual thinks that KG is not a Thelemite, who gets the casting vote?

And does it matter?

Well said spike. I don't think voting decides these things, at all. And no, it doesn't matter - not to me, anyway.

It is my (unashamedly conditioned, Crowleyesque) view that it is never a question of whether or not someone is a Thelemite, but how good a Thelemite they are. If Thelema is, in truth, the universal natural Kosmic force or developmental impulse of magical consciousness, it doesn't matter what label we think we or others "are" or aren't - it's how well we channel and manifest that force through our lives, unto ourselves and unto others, and unto our Kosmos, that determines the degree to which we may be said to practise Thelema more or less effectively.

"adav93" wrote:
The way KG practices Thelema, IMHO, is to write about, mainly, his and others' experiences in the New Isis Lodge. His writings of these experiences have seemed to provoke many people into belittling his contribution to Thelema, because they simply aren't interested, or don't find any personal meaning in it. I don't understand this, which is why I find it fascinating.

Thanks Ad93, in my (admittedly conjectural) view, I wouldn't define Mr. Grant's practise of "Thelema" as being limited to the writings he has produced. People and Thelema are rarely if ever so one-dimensional. Perhaps you meant, it is "one part of the way KG practises Thelema". I myself found his writings "useless" and baffling fifteen years ago - although I can't say I was so negligent as to pronounce upon them due to my own inability to penetrate their angle... I'm still baffled by a certain amount of their contents, I must confess, but certain radical experiences have led me to re-evaluate them in new light - and now, I find such profound practical (and theoretical) value in them, during the last seven years or so (or rather, it seems to have found me! 😯 ) that they presently form the most useful occult material written by another person that I currently possess. I attribute a certain amount of this value to his mature viewpoint regarding Thelema, his depth of insight into highly cognate Eastern elements which Crowley appears to have been relatively ignorant of, his broader assessment of the context of contemporary currents which relate to Thelema in many ways, and the direct transformation of consciousness which his books are known to be capable of producing upon the adequately primed reader. In that sense, Kenneth Grant's work in my opinion carries Thelema forward well into new territory on many fronts, and Nu Territory is the whole idea of Thelema, imho.

regards
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 8:19 am  

Lucifuge -- it is precisely the meaning behind the term you use which I'd like to learn more about, so when you feel confident enough to share it here, I'm all ears.

regards
N.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
01/07/2010 9:19 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
Lucifuge -- it is precisely the meaning behind the term you use which I'd like to learn more about, so when you feel confident enough to share it here, I'm all ears.

When Lucifage first posted to this thread, I was genuinely unsure if his term "Crowleyan orthodoxy" was used to describe a view of Crowley's work itself, or the self-perception of a body of followers. I didn't pursue the matter further with Lucifage because his reply made it clear that he meant the latter. I don't think there is any point in pursuing this particular line of enquiry anymore; the term has little meaning, and is perhaps of little relevance to this thread.

Andrew, I don't think that Camlion was splitting hairs, but merely observing with a modicum of drollness that there are many different tendencies within Thelema. I think that Thelema is, like Mahayana Buddhism, a broad church, and this is of course a strength.

Indeed, as someone stated in the course of this thread, there is a broader meaning of Thelemite whereby Thelema describes a natural law, and someone can be a Thelemite whether or not they have heard of Crowley, Aiwass, etc. Of course this takes us beyond categorisations. After all, if - to paraphrase Crowley - the injunction 'do what thou wilt' is to bid stars to shine, vines to bear grapes, water to seek its own level, then who wouldn't be a Thelemite, or a Gravityite come to that?

To come back to the title of this thread, I can appreciate that Grant's work isn't everybody's cup of tea, but he is a Thelemite and that's that.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 9:44 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
... unsure if his term "Crowleyan orthodoxy" was used to describe a view of Crowley's work itself, or the self-perception of a body of followers. I didn't pursue the matter further with Lucifage because his reply made it clear that he meant the latter. I don't think there is any point in pursuing this particular line of enquiry anymore; the term has little meaning, and is perhaps of little relevance to this thread.

Agreed!

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
After all, if - to paraphrase Crowley - the injunction 'do what thou wilt' is to bid stars to shine, vines to bear grapes, water to seek its own level, then who wouldn't be a Thelemite, or a Gravityite come to that?

Quite so - I teetered on referencing this quote myself. To me, this is one of Crowley's best expositions of what Thelema "is", as he understood it, and one which has always inspired me a lot. Imagine a world run on principles which encouraged this fructulent notion in human affairs . . .

cheers
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 11:37 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
When Lucifage first posted to this thread, I was genuinely unsure if his term "Crowleyan orthodoxy" was used to describe a view of Crowley's work itself, or the self-perception of a body of followers. I didn't pursue the matter further with Lucifage because his reply made it clear that he meant the latter. I don't think there is any point in pursuing this particular line of enquiry anymore; the term has little meaning, and is perhaps of little relevance to this thread.

Yes, agreed. The lack of relevance regarding the very loosely thrown out term "Crowleyan orthodoxy" in relation to this threads original question is why I've not been inclined to pursue it. As a starting point for its own thread, perhaps the discussion has some merit.

And of course you're right, I had hoped my reply did make it clear I meant the latter of the two options you suggest (though apparently not)The self-perception of those who consider themselves "real" Thelemites will lead to a narrow and restrictive idea of whether or not Grant is a Thelemite. The term "Thelemite"as a noun implies an orthodoxy regarding whether one "qualifies" to so define themselves. To apply a broader use of the term, for instance, using "thelemic" as an adjective, opens the discussion up to a much broader perspective.

Grant will not be considered a Thelemite by those who subscribe to an orthodoxy regarding whether or not he qualifies (which then, of course, starts a whole new argument). If, however, we discuss Grant's work in terms of what may be more loosely described as "thelemic principles" then we have a quite different discussion and, probably, answer.

MY use of the term thelemic leads me to declare Grant very much thelemic, and a Thelemite, but I acknowledge that by the measure of those who tout themselves as representing a more "orthodox" expression of Thelema, then he may or may not be (according to their position).

On a more personal note: I was legitimately taken to task for the tone of my original response to you. I apologise for my churlishness there. In writing my original response I was aware that the vagueness of some of my original terms were inevitably going to attract the attention of the more pedantically inclined and I prejudged the intent of your question. Since the terms I used that could possibly invite a pedantic sideshow were not, as you say, particularly relevant I was too quick to shut down/dismiss unnecessary focus on them. Apologies.

Lucifuge


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 4:49 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,

If one is to question whether or not Kenneth Grant is a Thelemite, then it stands to reason that the same could be asked of Frater Achad. So, if Achad is, then by default, so is Grant. Just my 2 cents.

love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
01/07/2010 5:00 pm  

I don't understand why it matters whether anyone thinks that Grant is or is not a Thelemite. Grant made his own position absolutely clear in his introductory statement in his edition of Crowley's 'Confessions'.

As for all this chatter about a label? Menus and meals, maps and territories, people...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 5:25 pm  
"adav93" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
I'll peck a bit more at this straw man with my Hawk's head... 🙂

"adav93" wrote:
Now, to the degree that his work is so self-evidently 'imaginative', I wonder how so many people can judge him as not-thelemic?

Since when is "imaginative" necessarily synonymous with "Thelemic"?

Phooey on this OP, altogether. 😉

Camilion,

I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that Magick is almost completely dependent on 'imagination', at least any kind of creative Magick? Thelema is synonymous with Will, and if your Will is to be creative in your practice of Magick...then I ask again, how can anyone judge that as non-Thelemic? And what in the hell does "phooey on this altogether" mean? (I may be American, but I'm always willing to learn) 😉

Andrew

This is all so simple, I'm having so much fun! 😛

Andrew, you are aware that some Thelemites have no interest whatsoever in Magick, aren't you? I am not one of them, but I know many personally. I am not putting imagination down, either, far from it, but imagination in and of itself is not equivalent to Thelema. In fact, a mind unable to focus, wandering aimlessly, is in many ways anathema to Thelema, just as a mind incapable of a certain degree of elasticity and adaptability is. Yes, Thelema is synonymous with true Will, but it may not be a given person's true Will to be creative to any great extent. I think you are confusing Thelema (true Will) as necessarily being related to the formal practice of Magick. The former, true Will, applies to everyone, to the many ("the law of for all"), but the latter, Magick, is of relevance to only a comparative few - and Kenneth Grant would be one of those few.

Perhaps the topic of this thread would be better put as "Is Kenneth Grant a Crowlean Magician?" or something of the sort? 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 6:06 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Indeed, as someone stated in the course of this thread, there is a broader meaning of Thelemite whereby Thelema describes a natural law, and someone can be a Thelemite whether or not they have heard of Crowley, Aiwass, etc. Of course this takes us beyond categorisations. After all, if - to paraphrase Crowley - the injunction 'do what thou wilt' is to bid stars to shine, vines to bear grapes, water to seek its own level, then who wouldn't be a Thelemite, or a Gravityite come to that?

Who wouldn't be a Thelemite? Many people are not, likely most are not, yet, for most are conflicted between true Will and contradictory forces, either internal or external to themselves, or both. Kenneth Grant, however, would certainly not be counted as an obvious example of these, certainly not.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 7:17 pm  

So much hemming and hawing.

Crowleyan orthodoxy means the mapping of Thelema on to the Tree of Life and, by extension, human evolutionary stream. So, yes, I can see why some people might regard KG as being “non-Thelemic”. On the other hand, asking whether KG is a Thelemite is on par with asking whether he is still human. It’s debatable, but at the end of the day a person’s orientation should be of no concern to other Thelemites. Perhaps KG found the human species to be boring.

That noted, there are interesting questions embedded in this thread.

A distinction ought to be made between the Qlippoth and Sitra Achra, of which the Cthulhu mythos seems to correspond with the latter – ancient alien worlds of non-anthropocentric life forms that became extinguished by the Creator - while the Qlippoth, according to Rabbi Luria, are energetic shards from the primordial shattering of Adam Kadmon; that is, they seem to attest to a primordial story in humanity (for example, Lilith is considered to be the “first wife” of Adam before she became discarded and replaced by Eve).

Within this picture, KG accepts the fallen state of the Tree and uses the fissures in it to explore non-human reality, deep transhuman currents, while the A.A. work seems close, if not identical, to the restorative work of tikkun, as evidenced by the Angel and the Abyss. From each AA student constituting a link in the chain of the Order to building up the pyramid stone by stone to binding the Four Princes to one’s HGA, the Great Work aims toward returning to a primordial, pre-Fall state. Or, as Crowley hints, a new configuration of the Tree:

Behind the figures of the Beast and his Bride are ten luminous rayed circles; they are the Sephiroth latent and not yet in order, for every new Aeon demands a new system of classification of the Universe.

(BoT, p. 95)

Now if someone’s True Will is oriented toward exploring non-human reality, consorting with aliens or getting off the Tree completely, one must question whether Crowley’s mapping of True Will to the Tree is an accurate representation or mere convenient reference - that is, whether Thelema can be limited to the human evolutionary stream. Patriarch156 mentioned in another thread Crowley’s concept of “mystical Will” that extends beyond the Tree and I, for one, would be interested in hearing more about this little-known concept.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 10:07 pm  
"tai" wrote:
Crowleyan orthodoxy means the mapping of Thelema on to the Tree of Life

Where, if one may be so ignorant as to ask, did you find this definition? Or is it one you made up?

So, yes, I can see why some people might regard KG as being “non-Thelemic”. On the other hand, asking whether KG is a Thelemite is on par with asking whether he is still human. It’s debatable, but at the end of the day a person’s orientation should be of no concern to other Thelemites. Perhaps KG found the human species to be boring.

With all due respect, this is one of the more ridiculous collections of ideas yet to appear on the pages of Lashtal, imo.

n


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 10:41 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
I don't understand why it matters whether anyone thinks that Grant is or is not a Thelemite. Grant made his own position absolutely clear in his introductory statement in his edition of Crowley's 'Confessions'.
As for all this chatter about a label? Menus and meals, maps and territories, people...

+1


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 11:11 pm  

Noctifer

Where, if one may be so ignorant as to ask, did you find this definition?

Little Essays. The fact Crowley identified with the Great Beast 666 probably means nothing to you.

With all due respect, this is one of the more ridiculous collections of ideas yet to appear on the pages of Lashtal, imo.

The ridiculous is predicated on your ignorance of basic information - see your first question.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 11:24 pm  
"tai" wrote:
Noctifer

Where, if one may be so ignorant as to ask, did you find this definition?

Little Essays.

There appears to be no such definition for the term "Crowleyan orthodoxy" in my copy of Little Essays.

"tai" wrote:
The ridiculous is predicated on *my* ignorance of basic information

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 11:33 pm  

First, don’t pull an “Erwin” on me by misquoting my words. That’s extremely childish.

Second, I guess you have to use your own brain to figure out what Crowleyan orthodoxy means. It’s pretty obvious to me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 11:39 pm  

But I thought you said it was in the Little Essays.

This is all off-topic, but to me, "Crowleyan orthodoxy" is practically an oxymoron.

(Crowleyites of the Crowleyan variety could, therefore, perhaps be called orthodoxymorons.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2010 11:51 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
"tai" wrote:
Crowleyan orthodoxy means the mapping of Thelema on to the Tree of Life

Where, if one may be so ignorant as to ask, did you find this definition? Or is it one you made up?

And bang! there you have it.

The casual throw-away line of "Crowleyan orthodoxy" can mean a range of things, and one would assume anyone of average intelligence not struggle too much in "grokking" the concept, but should any in the future wish to make an issue of strict definition (sigh), I could not explain it any better than to refer them to this post.

A Thelemite is free to be as original and creative (in short, as thelemic) as they want in how they choose to explore Thelema. (Though in this case, I am aware Crowley did say something to the effect Tai has suggested). Be that as it may, however, no justification, by which authority or book provides your definition, is required. To those who struggle with the concept of original thought (unless It Has Previously Been Written) simply need not engage further.

Lucifuge


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2010 12:04 am  

I have nothing against original thought, but the notion of "Crowleyan orthodoxy" is hardly an original thought. It's just meaningless. That's all.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2010 12:08 am  

Well, I simply disagree with the notion that Thelema can mean anything you want. For one, I am a strong believer in sanity. Part of that entails the recognition that Thelema, as Crowley defined it, is definitely bound up with certain concepts that require reading and understanding. If you don’t make the effort to understand what Crowley meant by Thelema or True Will, then don’t expect to be taken seriously if you use them terms carelessly. Second, True Will definitely leads toward freedom, but there is no freedom without responsibility – which links back to the “sanity” part.

Crowley maps True Will on to Chokmah/Chia in Little Essays. Chokmah corresponds to the grade of Magus which, according to Gunther, is “considered to be the highest state attainable while incarnate”. None of this makes any sense unless you understand the significance of the Tree of Life. Crowley profoundly identified with the human race and considered his to task as initiating the Next Step in human evolution, which according to some interpretations is KCHGA, while others believe it to be the Crossing of the Abyss – i.e. accessing Supernal reality. This is Crowleyan orthodoxy, which is frankly Messianic in thinking.

I don’t feel that KG is particularly interested in “saving” the human race. His work definitely intiates into non-human or even cosmic awareness. But I don’t think he really gives a hoot about the Tree of Life.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2010 12:25 am  

too much dogma kills the dogma.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
02/07/2010 12:29 am  

It's the catma that I worry about.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2010 12:39 am  
"tai" wrote:
Well, I simply disagree with the notion that Thelema can mean anything you want.

Nobody said that it did, so you're disagreeing with something that doesn't exist in this thread.

For one, I am a strong believer in sanity.

Oh, but you just . . . never mind.

Part of that entails the recognition that Thelema, as Crowley defined it, is definitely bound up with certain concepts that require reading and understanding.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I've been doing it for about twenty years, among other things. But thanks for this piece of advice anyway. Speaking of which . . .

If you don’t make the effort to understand what Crowley meant by Thelema or True Will, then don’t expect to be taken seriously if you use them terms carelessly. Second, True Will definitely leads toward freedom, but there is no freedom without responsibility – which links back to the “sanity” part.

Ah, sanity. Yes. That...

Crowley maps True Will on to Chokmah/Chia in Little Essays. Chokmah corresponds to the grade of Magus which, according to Gunther, is “considered to be the highest state attainable while incarnate”.

Well so much for Crowley's Ipsissimus initiation, then, eh? I guess he wasn't representing Crowleyan orthodoxy - or maybe Crowley wasn't representing Gunther's orthodoxy - or maybe there is simply no such thing.

None of this makes any sense

agreed

unless you understand the significance of the Tree of Life. Crowley profoundly identified with the human race and considered his to task as initiating the Next Step in human evolution, which according to some interpretations is KCHGA, while others believe it to be the Crossing of the Abyss – i.e. accessing Supernal reality. This is Crowleyan orthodoxy, which is frankly Messianic in thinking.

Thanks for providing your predictably meaningless definition of "Crowleyan orthodoxy". As I expected, it is a contradiction in terms, and explicitly so, as you provide two distinct interpretations, which means that one is unorthodox according to the other one. Now, what was that you were saying about "sanity"?

I don’t feel that KG is particularly interested in “saving” the human race. His work definitely intiates into non-human or even cosmic awareness. But I don’t think he really gives a hoot about the Tree of Life.

I disagree, and I don't see a distinction between initiating people into cosmic consciousness and "saving people", apart from the latter being a terrible way of putting the former. But there is no messianism in Grant's tone.

Crowley's messianism is an embarassing psychological defect, in my opinion, based on his strongly Christian upbringing, and reflected in his Leo ascendant, whose "shadow" qualities he never fully knew as such, imo.

As I have said, the difference between a bodhisattva and a messiah is that with the latter, it's all about them.

In Kenneth's books, one of the most attractive qualities is the human-ness, humanity, and groundedness which they bring to Thelema. And yes, this, despite the rich "alien" medium which he occasionally uses to convey it (and indeed the "alien" experience which his work can open up or manifest to the reader).

regards
N.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
02/07/2010 12:42 am  

The Confessions of Aleister Crowley (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979):

Aleister Crowley and the Law of Thelema

It is reasonably clear from the Introduction to this work that John Symonds does not accept the Law of Thelema. On this point we are at variance. Furthermore, I think that 'The Book of the Law' contains the key to the principal occult mysteries of the present age.

-- Kenneth Grant

Any chance that we can now bring this rather tedious thread to a halt?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2010 12:55 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
I have nothing against original thought, but the notion of "Crowleyan orthodoxy" is hardly an original thought. It's just meaningless. That's all.

I know I should just leave this be, (a Jugorum approach might be helpful)but again, stop and consider what "meaningless" actually means.

It is a term that can really only be used to describe the limits of ones capacity to understand, or find meaning.

Noctifer, you can't in this case. Clearly. The term "Crowleyan orthodoxy" is not meaningless (self-evidently, because some people appear to understand what it means); however, it is meaningless to you. And that's ok!

If I hear two computer whizzes discoursing about their trade in their technical jargon, it is meaningless to me. If I pick up a grimoire in the original Latin, it will be meaningless to me. If I find myself drawn into a conversation with people more intelligent than I, and I don't understand what they're saying, again, it will be meaningless to me.

Either I can recognise my own limitations, and say it is meaningless to me or I can affect an air of faux-superiority and just declare it all meaningless.

That one doesn't get the meaning of something doesn't make it meaningless. Surely that's obvious? I will speculate though that the reason you find the concept of "Crowleyan orthodoxy" so hard to understand is probably because you represent it, in spades.

But more importantly IT WAS A THROW-AWAY LINE! Not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, merely a peripheral and general phrase, the meaning of which was quite easily apprehended in the context, and hardly worthy of the near pathological pedantry it seems to have generated.

And no, I'm sure you have nothing against original thought. Just as long as it's indulged in the privacy of one's room and not paraded around in decent society, hmm? Perhaps we could settle on a "don't ask, don't tell" approach?

Lucifuge

Lucifuge


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2010 12:57 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
any chance that we can now bring this rather tedious thread to a halt?

Yes. Please. Dear God. CAN'T-SEEM-TO-HELP-MYSELF!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2010 12:58 am  

If it was a throw-away line, let's throw it away.

Here - you grab one end, I'll grab the other.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: