Notifications
Clear all

Outside the Circles of Time - Review  

Page 1 / 5
  RSS

ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
11/02/2010 9:59 pm  

With regard to a discussion in another topic in which I promised a review of Outside the Circles of Time, I have now posted my review at the following URL:
http://www.themagickalreview.org/reviews/outside-the-circles-of-time.php


Quote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/02/2010 10:43 pm  

Ian!

93

Thanks for your review - hilarious! - It even tops your short one in "another topic". But much more thanks for bringing back to mind this really wonderful thread. It's the perfect example why I simply love this site!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
11/02/2010 10:53 pm  

Yes, I'll second that…

An excellent, witty and perceptive review of a complex and occasionally baffling book, Ian.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 12:12 am  

Thanks. Should I mention I've already had a very positive response from one of the Typhonians too? πŸ˜‰


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1847
12/02/2010 12:14 am  

An excellent, witty and perceptive review of a complex and occasionally baffling book, Ian.

You're serious, Paul? Or is there some irony in your words that I'm missing?

I just finished reading Sir Ian's "review" and it reminded me distinctly of G. M. Kelly's "critique" of Grant.

Not that I'm surprised.

πŸ™„


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 12:26 am  

Footnote number 1 from the review:

1 The Oxford English Dictionary defines a teratoma as β€œ[a] tumour, esp. of the gonads […]”.

Seems this word has been touched upon once before:

http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-947.phtml


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
12/02/2010 12:27 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
You're serious, Paul? Or is there some irony in your words that I'm missing?

Yes, I'm serious, and no irony was intended. It's not a glowing review, I'll grant you (no pun intended), but it's certainly "witty and perceptive" and I'd welcome the opportunity to host it on this site just as I'd also welcome the opportunity to publish a favourable review should one be submitted, especially if it's as readable as Ian's.

It's important not to conflate the remarks by Ian over recent days in these forums with the contents of his review, by the way.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 12:32 am  

It's more of an insult to the content of the rest of that site (which is brilliant) than to Grant. What a shame.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
12/02/2010 1:53 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
It's important not to conflate the remarks by Ian over recent days in these forums with the contents of his review, by the way.

On the contrary, it's merely the extension of these self-same "remarks". I have no problems with Ian's critical remarks per se - I may not like his views, but will defend to the death his right to utter them. What I take exception to is the sheer vitriol and personal abuse, which might be expected in a primary school playground, but is surely out of place here on Lashtal.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 1:55 am  

It's important not to conflate the remarks by Ian over recent days in these forums with the contents of his review, by the way.

Hummm, well that's a pretty tough thing to do when he's been ranting like a crazy person about Grant and anyone who respects his work for days now. I dont know how anyone's suposed to read his review objectively when it reeks of his frenzied prejudices-but then this is just my opinion which i'm sure is wrong... or Grants fault probably or whatever the fuck makes me in disagreement with Ian. I have a feeling he will come clear it up for me though , call it a hunch. Oh, and for the record, I realize Ian most likely didn't write it to be read objectively but more from his stand point of "self expression" or whatever he's doing.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 5:21 am  

Blame it on the Moon (in Capricorn)... πŸ˜‰


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 5:23 am  

there you go, to hell with taking responsibility for one's actions, it was all in the stars!


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 6:42 am  

But anyway, there seem to be four people expressing disapproval and/or disagreement with the article in question. Now that the moon's in Aquarius and I'm naturally bound, therefore, to be humble and nice again, would any of you gentle souls care to elaborate a critique, however brief, of the review? In particular, are there are points that seem factually incorrect? Is my general summary valid, does it seem? And if not, why not?


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 165
12/02/2010 6:51 am  

Ian, I loved your review and passed it along to many friends.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 6:58 am  

I found Outside the Circles of Time so confusing, I hardly have an opinion on the matter. Hopefully soon I can muster up the courage to give it another read.

But I don't think Grant's stance on the Necronomicon is that it is an actual physical text that exists on the physical plane or "IRL."


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
12/02/2010 8:38 am  

Wow, that review from Sir Anon was scathing. Pretty much in keeping with his zealous stance to relation to the TOTO on the forums here.
Thought the review mocked Grant and was completely biased.
I myself have read the book and thought that it was a good insight into another facet of Thelema, one which I would acknowledge if not actually adhere to personally.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 12:21 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
But anyway, there seem to be four people expressing disapproval and/or disagreement with the article in question. Now that the moon's in Aquarius and I'm naturally bound, therefore, to be humble and nice again, would any of you gentle souls care to elaborate a critique, however brief, of the review? In particular, are there are points that seem factually incorrect? Is my general summary valid, does it seem? And if not, why not?

I thought all that talk of teratomas was a load of old bollocks. πŸ˜‰


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 4:21 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
Ian, I loved your review and passed it along to many friends.

Thanks, much appreciated πŸ™‚

"AEternitas" wrote:
But I don't think Grant's stance on the Necronomicon is that it is an actual physical text that exists on the physical plane or "IRL."

In my review, I criticised "the view taken by the author that the Necronomicon is somehow a genuine historical document". The key word here is "somehow": Grant considers it an actual document that pre-dates Lovecraft, and that bits of it were used by (e.g.) Crowley and Blavatsky (pp.59-60), and although he does indeed shy away from suggesting it has physical existence, nevertheless he would clearly regard that as being merely a reification (p.166) of something that, in fact, already exists "somehow" (in various places identifying its location as being in the "dream state", in the akashic record, beyond the Abyss, etc.). The central point is that Grant does not accept Lovecraft's own statements, such as when he talks about "the synthetic mythology I have concocted for my stories", stating instead that "Lovecraft – fearful of its contents – stressed its mythical origin". (Yah, right!)

BTW, I notice you use "IRL", a roleplaying term... coincidence?

"ptoner" wrote:
Thought the review mocked Grant and was completely biased.

I think I represented Grant as he actually is, or rather better: I cut out the boring bits. It doesn't surprise me that the Typhonians here don't like my views and naturally think I'm "biased", but I've never heard any complaints of "bias" or lack of "objectivity" from the Typhonians when people fawn over Grant, so it's really a little late to play that card, don't you think? Perhaps I should explain that there's a difference between appreciating a thing for what it is (which is what I am doing) and simply attacking it unjustly. If you can point out a definite error in my understanding of Grant, then please do so.

Again, it would be interesting to hear substantial comments regarding the review (something like AEternitas' comment) rather than the usual sulks...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 5:02 pm  

In that case I found it equally witty and entertaining, much in the same vein as I find most british humour.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 5:14 pm  

I do agree that Grant's use of terminology in common with Crowley's is potentially misleading, confusing and, ultimately, unnecessary. This is in line with my numerous objections earlier in these forums and elsewhere over the years to Grant's use of the name 'OTO.' I assume that Grant did this to convey a sense of continuity with Crowley which is, again, misleading and unnecessary. Any value to Grant's work, it seems to me, is unique to it and does not depend upon this degree of continuity with Crowley's work. In fact, this misuse of terminology only detracts from that value, it seems to me, as it is fodder for criticism and a distraction from Grant's original ideas.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 5:29 pm  

Yes, I think that's a very fair summary. You mention the "OTO" thing -- I was trying to avoid that, except to indicate in the review that it's over -- but I suppose it really isn't a million miles away. Obviously it's too late to alter how Grant has used Crowley's terminology, but I hope what Typhonians will take away from the recent debates is that there is a need to recognise what is, actually, a legitimate "grievance" (if you will) on the part of those who want to talk about Crowley's Thelema without being misunderstood. My belief is that, although it doesn't always show, there is a deep undercurrent of misunderstanding between people who tend towards Grant's interpretation of the terminology and those who mean what Crowley meant -- or something much closer to it -- by those same terms. In a sense the community is suffering from a kind of split personality.

I hope these comments will encourage folks to look up the sources and see how the usage of terminology differs.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 6:01 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Yes, I think that's a very fair summary. You mention the "OTO" thing -- I was trying to avoid that, except to indicate in the review that it's over -- but I suppose it really isn't a million miles away. Obviously it's too late to alter how Grant has used Crowley's terminology, but I hope what Typhonians will take away from the recent debates is that there is a need to recognise what is, actually, a legitimate "grievance" (if you will) on the part of those who want to talk about Crowley's Thelema without being misunderstood. My belief is that, although it doesn't always show, there is a deep undercurrent of misunderstanding between people who tend towards Grant's interpretation of the terminology and those who mean what Crowley meant -- or something much closer to it -- by those same terms. In a sense the community is suffering from a kind of split personality.

I hope these comments will encourage folks to look up the sources and see how the usage of terminology differs.

Yes, I believe that Grant was his own worst enemy in these matters but, as you say, what's done is done. As for the value of Grant's original work, I am not qualified to judge definitively, having never fully engaged in it personally. I do, however, find merit in the opinions of those Typhonians whose intelligence and experience I respect, and I suggest that interested parties check it out for themselves.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 6:38 pm  

It would be an unreasonable task, impossible actually, to not entirely conflate Ian's 'review' with his forum posts which are, quite frankly, bonkers. And which were even more bonkers in his discernment of this topic (as well as the others I read) only a short while past... They are likely to become even more bonkers still (out of sheer frustration presumably) until he realises that to provoke any serious response to his 'criticisms' about "Cthulhu worship", especially across this his chosen medium, he would need to construct something far less selective that places Grant, or this "Cthulhu worship" as an empirical reality within western esotericism, regardless of what he thinks of its content and how this appears to affect him as abnormally as it seems to. He would have to demonstrate additionally just a tiny amount of knowledge about, or at least acknowledgement of, common esoteric property and how this becomes repackaged within esoteric contexts before blasting away at the 'plagiarism, appropriation, and/or distortion' of elements Grant has adopted from Crowley and how they are so misleading and unrelated to, using a larger breadth of examples than the superficial ones he feels will cause amusement, or that tie-up to his own (Crowley) belief system.

If he attempted to mask this repellent ideological stance of his behind a persona less jaded (difficult now considering the posts, amongst other things πŸ˜‰ ) then he might be more justified in his desperate attempt to claim, or might at least attract a bit more attention to, his opinion that Grant is really crap, or, 'that because of his anti-intellectualism represents no continuation of Crowley in any sense', and should be rubbished once and for all. Otherwise, it predictably all ends up leaving a rancid taste in the mouth, one far worse than anything Grant could ever have created...

Oh, and there's evidently no point in attempting to discuss it...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 7:03 pm  

I thought the review raised some interesting points. Unfortunately, it's severely flawed by the reviewer's extreme sarcasm. Remarks made by the reviewer elsewhere further mar and discredit the review by revealing his deep-seated anger amounting to a personal vendetta against Grant. Anger is considered a reaction to fear. So my question to Mr. Rons is what about Grant or the Typhonians is he afraid of?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 7:04 pm  
"the_spurious_simon_iff" wrote:
to provoke any serious response to his 'criticisms' about "Cthulhu worship", especially across this his chosen medium, he would need to construct something far less selective that places Grant, or this "Cthulhu worship" as an empirical reality within western esotericism

If you -- or your brethren -- demonstrated an ability to produce any "serious response", these comments might be credible. On the contrary, whilst Kyle is busy denying Cthulhu worship elsewhere here and then being silenced by the obvious fact of it, and whilst Michael Staley is busy kissing babies in the forum (those who profess a liking for Grant), and in the absence of any serious criticism, your unwillingness to engage with the topic is surely a sign of weakness and inability to respond. What you imply, that "Cthulhu worship" has no "empirical reality within western esotericism", is just laughably silly. Outside the Circles of Time is an extended exhortation to attempt astral, sexual congress with entities including but not limited to Cthulhu, Yog Soggoth, Ananse, etc., etc. (but nothing pleasant)

"the_spurious_simon_iff" wrote:
He would have to demonstrate additionally just a tiny amount of knowledge about, or at least acknowledgement of, common esoteric property and how this becomes repackaged within esoteric contexts

This technique -- finding spurious reasons to avoid discussing the issues raised for discussion -- is hardly original, nor is it clever. It doesn't change the fact that you apparently refuse to discuss the issues raised, which is presumably because you are unable to. Let me interpolate: "What Mr. Rons needs to do is get a certification from me that he has the requisite knowledge to discuss these points with me." etc.

"the_spurious_simon_iff" wrote:
before blasting away at the 'plagiarism, appropriation, and/or distortion' of elements Grant has adopted from Crowley

The quotation marks here are also spurious -- I haven't used that phrase.

"the_spurious_simon_iff" wrote:
and how they are so misleading and unrelated to, using a larger breadth of examples than the superficial ones he feels will cause amusement, or that tie-up to his own (Crowley) belief system.

Ah, you want more examples? Exactly how many examples are necessary, do you think? Do you have a precise number in mind, or is it always a number just higher than the number of examples I have previously given?

"the_spurious_simon_iff" wrote:
If he attempted to mask this repellent ideological stance of his behind a persona less jaded (difficult now considering the posts, amongst other things πŸ˜‰ ) then he might be more justified in his desperate attempt to claim, or might at least attract a bit more attention to, his opinion that Grant is really crap, or, 'that because of his anti-intellectualism represents no continuation of Crowley in any sense', and should be rubbished once and for all. Otherwise, it predictably all ends up leaving a rancid taste in the mouth, one far worse than anything Grant could ever have created...

Again, you seem to be inventing quotes for me. That really is a very annoying habit.

"the_spurious_simon_iff" wrote:
Oh, and there's evidently no point in attempting to discuss it...

No -- you are simply refusing to discuss it, apparently because you are unable to do so. Yet you are happy to spend several paragraphs doing so. Have you noticed that what you have just presented is an ad hominem rant almost completely devoid of any substance whatsoever, merely a collection of excuses to avoid debate?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 7:16 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
I thought the review raised some interesting points. Unfortunately, it's severely flawed by the reviewer's extreme sarcasm. Remarks made by the reviewer elsewhere further mar and discredit the review by revealing his deep-seated anger amounting to a personal vendetta against Grant. Anger is considered a reaction to fear. So my question to Mr. Rons is what about Grant or the Typhonians is he afraid of?

What on earth do you mean "Anger is considered a reaction to fear."? I don't think so. Can you justify that? If you can, then I will answer your dependent question. Otherwise I suggest you rephrase it as something like "Why don't you like Grant?" -- which is really what you mean. And I think I've already answered that in the review.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 7:40 pm  

I think if my review were demonstrably inaccurate there would have been some corrections flying by now.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 7:57 pm  

Alright, I'll rephrase it..."why are you so angry with Grant?"

The quotes below are to support the "Anger is considered a reaction to fear" statement

http://www.anger-management-tips.com/anger-managament-lesson%201-the%20root%20cause%20of%20Anger.htm :

The Anatomy of Anger

When you are angry, you know that you don't feel good. But often times, we are unsure as to "what" you are feeling. Let me show you what may be creating your anger. You see, anger is a combination of up to four other emotions; feelings of;

* Grieving, sorrow or loss
* Fears
* Lowered Self-Esteem
* Worry or Over thinking

http://my.opera.com/starree/blog/2009/04/29/fear-is-the-root-cause-of-anger :

I have noticed the root cause of anger is fear. Also many guilt related items are fear.

You can't get much more of an irrefutable authority than Yoda πŸ˜€

β€œFear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

There are 5,290,000 search results for "fear leads anger."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 8:06 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
I think if my review were demonstrably inaccurate there would have been some corrections flying by now.

kyle did correct you re: Chthulu worship in the other thread.

I am honestly at a loss as to where Ian comes up with his idea that any Typhonian "worships" Cthulhu. Certainly not from Grant's writing. He treats of the subject as follows:

β€œLike other accounts of unclassifiable phases of earth's history the Cthulhu Cult epitomises the subconsciousness and the forces outside terrestrial awareness. It may be said in passing that true creativity can occur only when these forces are invoked to flood with their light the magical network of the mind. For purposes of explanation the mind may be envisaged as divided into three rooms, the edifice which contains them being the only real or permanent principle. These rooms are:

β€œ1) Subconsciousness, the dream state;
β€œ2) Mundane consciousness, the waking state;
β€œ3) Transcendantal consciousness, veiled in the non-initiate by the state of sleep.

β€œThe compartments are further conceived as being connected with the house that contains them, by a series of conduits or tunnels. The house represents trans-terrestrial consciousness. The invoked forces - Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, Azathoth, etc - are then understood, not as malignant or destructive entities but as the dynamic energies of consciousness, the functions of which are to blast away the delusion of separate existence (the rooms in our illustration).”

You replied to him but your examples:

the term "Cthulhu Cult" is a bit of a giveaway, but as you know perfectly well there are plenty of other examples, such as where Grant defines Cthulhu in the glossary to OTCOT as "the Hidden God", or as a Great Old One/Secret Chief (spec. in Binah). Also the Lam Serpent Sadhana is a practice designed to raise Cthulhu; and in the quote you yourself cite, Grant mentions Cthulhu as a force to be invoked.

Doesn't necessarily indicate worship - that's your interpretation which Kyle refuted.

It could also be that less people choose to correct the review because they wish to not experience the insults and the Wrath of Rons. πŸ˜†


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 8:15 pm  

zardoz,

"zardoz" wrote:
Alright, I'll rephrase it..."why are you so angry with Grant?"

The quotes below are to support the "Anger is considered a reaction to fear" statement

http://www.anger-management-tips.com/anger-managament-lesson%201-the%20root%20cause%20of%20Anger.htm :

The Anatomy of Anger

When you are angry, you know that you don't feel good. But often times, we are unsure as to "what" you are feeling. Let me show you what may be creating your anger. You see, anger is a combination of up to four other emotions; feelings of;

* Grieving, sorrow or loss
* Fears
* Lowered Self-Esteem
* Worry or Over thinking

http://my.opera.com/starree/blog/2009/04/29/fear-is-the-root-cause-of-anger :

I have noticed the root cause of anger is fear. Also many guilt related items are fear.

You can't get much more of an irrefutable authority than Yoda πŸ˜€

β€œFear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

There are 5,290,000 search results for "fear leads anger."

So if I become angry next time a car alarm goes off, does that mean I'm afraid of the car alarm? Obviously not.

Anger is a useful evolutionary response, but it is not always necessary for the stimulus that triggers it to be an threat so severe as to produce fear (in any meaningful sense, at least -- one might argue that fear is always a residual factor in any response). So in short, the two emotions appear not to be bound together.

As for Yoda, watch this review (it's hilarious anyway), and somewhere in the middle is a critique of the statement you quote (or something like it):
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/17/watch-this-70-minute-video-review-of-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 8:30 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
So if I become angry next time a car alarm goes off, does that mean I'm afraid of the car alarm? Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you'll win every argument if you keep answering your own questions.

"ianrons" wrote:
Anger is a useful evolutionary response, but it is not always necessary for the stimulus that triggers it to be an threat so severe as to produce fear (in any meaningful sense, at least -- one might argue that fear is always a residual factor in any response).

This response indicates that you acknowledge your anger. Well, that's a start. So, I really want to know, why are you so angry with Grant?

"ianrons" wrote:
As for Yoda, watch this review (it's hilarious anyway), and somewhere in the middle is a critique of the statement you quote (or something like it):
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/17/watch-this-70-minute-video-review-of-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/

Thanks, I'll check it out when I get some time.

"ianrons" wrote:
He attempted to correct me, but failed when it became obvious that Grant (and, by extension, his acolytes) do indeed "worship Cthulhu". So that is not a "correction" as such, although it was a criticism.

Emphasis added by me. It's not obvious to me. Is it obvious to anyone else here that the Typhonians worship Cthulhu?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 8:31 pm  

zardoz,

"zardoz" wrote:
kyle did correct you re: Chthulu worship in the other thread.

He attempted to correct me, but failed when it became obvious that Grant (and, by extension, his acolytes) do indeed "worship Cthulhu". Therefore I don't accept it as a correction, although it was a criticism.

"zardoz" wrote:
You replied to him but your examples [...] Doesn't necessarily indicate worship - that's your interpretation which Kyle refuted.

Nonsense. "Worship", as I illustrated with the quote from the Oxford English Dictionary, means roughly "to honour or revere as a supernatural being or power", etc. The simple fact that Grant identifies Cthulhu with Binah is enough to demonstrate, completely conclusively, the proposition.

Nevertheless, to come back to what Kyle said, the only substantive part of his response was a statement to the effect that he has done the Lam Serpent Sadhana many times but never with the intention of raising Cthulhu. I didn't particularly want to make it a he-said-she-said thing, but Michael Staley himself declared to me that this is the basis of the procedure (the intent being to wake Cthulhu, which is conceived in that practice as kinda like kundalini) in a discussion at the Plough on one occasion in 2007 IIRC. Nevertheless that has no bearing on how Cthulhu is perceived by Grant, and he clearly does place Cthulhu -- and all the "Great Old Ones" -- as Gods above the Abyss, in several places in OTCOT (I can supply quotes and page numbers if you wish, but the glossary at the back is quite clear on this point), as I've already noted & quoted in my review.

"zardoz" wrote:
It could also be that less people choose to correct the review because they wish to not experience the insults and the Wrath of Rons. πŸ˜†

Excuses, excuses...


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/02/2010 8:35 pm  

I found the review very entertaining and informative. I actually had no idea that Typhonian practices can involve imagining sex with these creatures (the "Spider Queen"? Seriously?). What exactly are the practical ends of such operations? Is it really to "save humanity" from something, or are these just code words for experiencing some kind of vaguely Buddhist trance state? If so, why the code words?

As I've suggested in other threads, I don't think experiencing trance states -- even those brought on by some hot and heavy action with the spider queen -- can be equated with spiritual attainment.

At any rate, when it comes right down to it, believing that Cthulhu is real isn't actually much sillier than any other supernatural beliefs. Where's the dividing line between Cthulhu, Xenu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, karma, the "law of attraction," and the Abrahamic god?

Speaking of roleplaying and spider queens: does anyone actually remember the old adventure module Queen of the Demonweb Pits? Good times.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 8:41 pm  

zardoz,

First off -- I half did a reply to your point about Kyle, then turned it into a separate post -- see the later one.

"zardoz" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
So if I become angry next time a car alarm goes off, does that mean I'm afraid of the car alarm? Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you'll win every argument if you keep answering your own questions.

I was demonstrating that fear does not necessarily precede anger, but if you choose to ignore the argument I'm making then what's the point?

"zardoz" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
Anger is a useful evolutionary response, but it is not always necessary for the stimulus that triggers it to be an threat so severe as to produce fear (in any meaningful sense, at least -- one might argue that fear is always a residual factor in any response).

This response indicates that you acknowledge your anger. Well, that's a start. So, I really want to know, why are you so angry with Grant?

How does it indicate an acknowledgment of anger in respect of Grant, rather than acknowledging the fact that (some) organisms are capable of anger? You really are just putting words into my mouth, because you want to attack the man and not the arguments I've made in my review. In truth I am in no way angry at Grant, but I am annoyed at his ideas, and in fact during the writing of this response is the first time for probably years that I have actually become consciously aware that Kenneth Grant is an octogenarian living in a house in Finchley or somewhere like that. Who cares about Grant the man? Not me.

"zardoz" wrote:
So, I really want to know, why are you so angry with Grant?

Let's talk about the ideas. I really do get annoyed by his ridiculous ideas, and I've explained why in the review, so please address the points that I've made in the review.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 8:54 pm  

Los,

"Los" wrote:
I found the review very entertaining and informative.

Thanks. And may I say what a discerning reader you are? πŸ™‚

"Los" wrote:
I actually had no idea that Typhonian practices can involve imagining sex with these creatures (the "Spider Queen"? Seriously?).

Seriously! Though I imagine the appendages differ on the astral. You might imagine something penetrating your head -- I think that's the general idea -- but there seems always the suggestion that the creature is dominant and existentially-encompassing (i.e., it involves a surrender to black nightmares).

"Los" wrote:
What exactly are the practical ends of such operations? Is it really to "save humanity" from something, or are these just code words for experiencing some kind of vaguely Buddhist trance state? If so, why the code words?

The practical ends seem to be, to Grant, that it'll help everyone cross the Abyss. This is apparently necessary to save humanity, though he doesn't actually specify what humanity needs to be saved from. The concept of the "Wordless Aeon" means that we can't seek help from supernal forces, apparently, but must worship this creepy stuff. He doesn't exactly say why... hell, I didn't write it! (BTW, I can provide more quotes to back all this up if you like, but there are already some in the review. Sorry if I seem to be repeating what I said in the review, but yes it's all true, and I don't think these are just "code words".)

"Los" wrote:
At any rate, when it comes right down to it, believing that Cthulhu is real isn't actually much sillier than any other supernatural beliefs. Where's the dividing line between Cthulhu, Xenu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, karma, the "law of attraction," and the Abrahamic god?

Well, I don't go along with the notion that "all ideas are equal". I would sooner agree that all music is equally delightful. Some ideas, or tunes, are just completely-out-there-crazy-ugly. I merely point out how extreme Grant's beliefs really are... and take the mick, righteously.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 9:04 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
I was demonstrating that fear does not necessarily precede anger, but if you choose to ignore the argument I'm making then what's the point?

I ignored the argument because you already answered it. And, I have no idea what your reactions would be when a car alarm goes off. I sometimes get startled when an alarm goes off before I get annoyed. If I look at why I'm startled it seems like a fear that something dangerous might happen.

I can accept your point that "fear does not necessarily precede anger." Seems that it often does, though.

"ianrons" wrote:
How does it indicate an acknowledgment of anger in respect of Grant, rather than acknowledging the fact that (some) organisms are capable of anger?

I observed your anger with Grant. Your answer:

"Anger is a useful evolutionary response..." indicates justification of that anger, not denial.

"ianrons" wrote:
because you want to attack the man and not the arguments I've made in my review.

You've invalidated your own arguments by these relentless and unneccesarry attacks on KG and his School.

"ianrons" wrote:
Who cares about Grant the man? Not me.

A rather disingenuous question, don't you think?

btw, I'm happy to discuss the ideas in OTCOT and your review after I've read the book. I'm just emerging from a period of gainful unemployment - won't be able to get the book for another month, then read it, so I'll get back to you later to discuss the ideas.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 9:19 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
I ignored the argument because you already answered it. And, I have no idea what your reactions would be when a car alarm goes off. I sometimes get startled when an alarm goes off before I get annoyed. If I look at why I'm startled it seems like a fear that something dangerous might happen.

Yeah, but we could then argue that surprise precedes anger... but anyway, since you say you accept my point that "fear does not necessarily precede anger" we can move on.

"zardoz" wrote:
I observed your anger with Grant.

You observed my anger with Grant's ideas, but even if I was or am angry with Grant, so what? Surely the ideas are important, not these silly attempts to prove a character flaw...? It's all ad hominem -- you realise that, right?

"ianrons" wrote:
You've invalidated your own arguments by these relentless and unneccesarry attacks on KG and his School.

So if I disagree with Grant I should do so in a particular manner? Why so? And who determines whether an argument is an "unnecessary attack"? How does a "relentless" criticism invalidate an argument? Your logic seems weak.

"zardoz" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
Who cares about Grant the man? Not me.

A rather disingenuous question, don't you think?

My comment, if you go back and look, meant "Who would be angry at Grant the man?" As I said, I disagree with Grant's ideas, and don't have any personal animosity. You are being disingenuous by suggesting otherwise, and actually seem to be continuing an ad hominem argument that -- really -- has no merit. Attack my ideas, my arguments, my review... what's the point of attacking me personally, except to avoid having to attack my ideas?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 9:20 pm  

There still seems to be no real criticism of the points raised in my review. I'm not complaining, but I'm still looking forward to a devastating critique, based on the text, from the likes of Mick, Kyle or Alistair at some point soon. Fingers crossed...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 9:58 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
It's all ad hominem -- you realise that, right?

Yes, I realize most of your comments outside the review are ad hominem against Grant and the Typhonians. I'm responding in like kind.

"ianrons" wrote:
So if I disagree with Grant I should do so in a particular manner? Why so?

Because all the emotional name calling indicates 1) anger, and 2) desperation to prove a point. You should be able to make the points without the attacks. If you can't, or choose not to, then it appears like you feel the attacks are necessary to make the points. If the only way to make the point is to emotionally attack, then it brings into question the intellectual validity of said point. The point is that the point should be able to be made without attending emotional hysteria.

Relentless criticism is fine. Relentless insults is just bad form.

"ianrons" wrote:
what's the point of attacking me personally,

I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking your ill-mannered presentation which includes all the sarcasm in the review.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 11:17 pm  

Ian, you know what, I'd say you're nearly as good as Erwin...

I of course intend no offence by 'nearly'. But give it a little while longer and you will have tapped that same, apparently inexhaustible, molecular nexus of assault mode, alongside making it sound there's something reasonable behind consistently inverted arguments, or that you truly believe (in a purely rational sense) they are demonstrative, or even capable of masquerading as, some logically held perspective. Which often just begs the question why you all bother.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1549
12/02/2010 11:20 pm  

The reviewer did not make this up. Logically by wasting money and time to prove a rational stand point; the OTCOT served him with the 7 of swords.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 12:57 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
"AEternitas" wrote:
But I don't think Grant's stance on the Necronomicon is that it is an actual physical text that exists on the physical plane or "IRL."

In my review, I criticised "the view taken by the author that the Necronomicon is somehow a genuine historical document". The key word here is "somehow": Grant considers it an actual document that pre-dates Lovecraft, and that bits of it were used by (e.g.) Crowley and Blavatsky (pp.59-60), and although he does indeed shy away from suggesting it has physical existence, nevertheless he would clearly regard that as being merely a reification (p.166) of something that, in fact, already exists "somehow" (in various places identifying its location as being in the "dream state", in the akashic record, beyond the Abyss, etc.). The central point is that Grant does not accept Lovecraft's own statements, such as when he talks about "the synthetic mythology I have concocted for my stories", stating instead that "Lovecraft – fearful of its contents – stressed its mythical origin". (Yah, right!)

BTW, I notice you use "IRL", a roleplaying term... coincidence?

I thought IRL was internet lingo. I've never played any D&D, and I've never cared much for gaming in general. So I suppose yes, it is a coincidence.
I completely agree with the concept of the Necronomicon as a book in the "akashic records." At the same time, I have no problem with the idea that the "Necronomicon" was a creation of Lovecrafts.
I think it's obvious that the concepts that Lovecraft was writing about have a tendency to strike some of the deeper places in human consciousness, the race memories of our primal existence and evolution.
I think you take the whole Mythos Magick thing a bit literal, much in the same way an angsty 15 year old may, only you seem to "know better."

Can you give me some reference to Crowley forcibly rejecting Grant as his student?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
13/02/2010 12:59 am  

Moderator's Note

I'm grateful to Ian for giving me permission to publish his controversial review on LAShTAL.COM: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/Reviews-req-showcontent-id-63.phtml

Members will note that the option to add Comments to the Review is enabled and I look forward to reading responses to the content of his Review there.

The Review remains available also on Ian's own, highly regarded website, The Magckal Review.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 1:00 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
There still seems to be no real criticism of the points raised in my review. I'm not complaining, but I'm still looking forward to a devastating critique, based on the text, from the likes of Mick, Kyle or Alistair at some point soon. Fingers crossed...

Wow, looks like if someone doesn't come back with an excellent rebuttle, you and your big ol' ego can bask in all of the wonderous glory of "being right." Wouldn't that be just so nice?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 1:09 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
I think if my review were demonstrably inaccurate there would have been some corrections flying by now.

I'm nearly halfway through the book myself , Ian. I'll critique your "review" then, or possibly review it myself.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
13/02/2010 1:12 am  
"SSS" wrote:
I'll critique your "review" then, or possibly review it myself.

I'd be delighted to publish other well-written, well-informed reviews alongside Ian's.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 1:12 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
Ah, you want more examples? Exactly how many examples are necessary, do you think? Do you have a precise number in mind, or is it always a number just higher than the number of examples I have previously given?

Come on Ian, that is an obvious line drawing fallacy. Not that I am defending his point, merely calling you out for using fallacious arguments while at the same time criticizing others for their ad hominem rants.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 1:31 am  

Aum Ha, ha, ha, ha,
Just read Ian's review of KG's 'Outside'.
None of his books make sense.
Western Zen.
Intimations of the Otherness abound.
Lovecraft's Octopoid swimming through the vast sea of space, whilst blowing a saxophone to a Voudon drum beat, wild sex with serpentine negress freaking your mind as you ingest her kalas and work out the numbers.

Sounds like fun to me !!!!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 1:57 am  

"Nature is not the grocer weighing sugar it is the compensation of complicated rhythms, compensations should be festive." Aleister Crowley Book of Thoth
The reviewer sounds like the grocer .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 2:11 am  

Nice quote, Iah.- Dee,
Have you read the book in question ?
Laugh in the face of your guru.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 5
Share: