@Michael Staley :

There’s no sense in that section of De Arte Magica of Crowley thinking along those lines. I have the impression that he simply noted a certain haphazardness that was beyond the control of the operator, and left it at that.
I surmise you don’t interpret these “deeper strata of consciousness than the individual” as being equivalent to “divine”, then? It could have been that the "haphazardness beyond the control of the operator” was caused by this misalignment of personal and divine will, but as with most things Thelemic, this must be open to personal (mis)interpretation.

@dom :

Sorry to dash to pieces this image you have of me as the font of all knowledge. If I say I don’t know there’s no big cryptic mystery to it y’know?
You’re putting words into my mouth! I have no such image. It’s just for a moment there you actually did give the impression that, rightly or wrongly, you had some idea you vaguely knew what you were talking about.

Now you’re making sense. You’re saying that someone who has climbed to 5=6 and further is forced to go beyond samsara…… moreso? If that’s the case then why did these sex magic workings not work? It doesn’t matter.
Making sense is more than you are here. Let’s recap a little --- re-read it all again and hopefully you’ll see what I was really saying. So. You previously wrote: “I was told by a teacher when I was younger that any type of sorcery/ spell etc won’t work if the law of Karma is not taken into account. Maybe that is why AC’s sex magick rites have failed. He was an asshole with a whole lotta karmic debts to pay.” Both me and Shiva then pointed out that A.C. would have worked through the remainder of his personal karmic debt in the course of the grades and particularly including and above Adeptus Minor. So therefore it probably wasn’t that which would have stopped his IX from working.

Someone around here is looking to be a bit of an asshole. But I don’t think it was A.C.

Meanwhile, myself & Michael are still waiting for the source of your reference to A.C. indicating that these particular workings failed which as usual you have omitted to provide.

Y noJ

Has the lot of women trapped in victorian marriages improved ?

@jamiebarter

You're confused. I didn't claim to have a source. I was wondering if anyone knew if he ever discussed why workings failed.

Basically you and Shiva are saying that an M.T. can do no wrong? That is, they are beyond bad karma? I was speaking to a guy once and he said that his workings never fail. I'm assuming he was telling me that his True Will was full on.

Or he could be a great big liar, not a very critical thinker, or delusional?

Perhaps shockingly, some are prone to exaggeration/wishful thinking here.

d: Basically you and Shiva are saying that an M.T. can do no wrong?

Is that a question? I guess so, because there's a "?" suffixed.

A Magister can do no wrong! Yes, I bleive that to be true.

However, and I must pause to state that I have post this universal concept many times in the past, end pause, however ...

A Magister is not a Magister unless he/she is operating in the light body.

The rest of the time, he/she is subject to the same physical laws as everyone else.

Note: (this note often appears): The "light body" is not the astral body or the causal body. It is a body of pure light, seen as total black at Binah, revealed as light at Chokmah, and concealed at Kether.

An 8=3 is a "Master of Samadhi." That is, we (the any of us dumb-ass vehicles) are able to enter samadhi (more or less) at Will. This is informative in that one grasps the gestalt of the situation through gnosis (direct perception), which leads to understanding.

It is also useful for walking a treacherous, dividing path (like in martial arts combat against multiple assailants, or riding a bicycle in New York City traffic), because a detached mind is influenced by intuition. Wu-wei.

When not floating through life on a samadhic cloud,* one is just another folk, folking around within the hard walls of the Shell Called Malkuth.

@shiva and ignant and jamiebarter

Ok so if we established that AC as an M.T. could do no wrong then why did his sex-magick workings fail? I see Ignant's reasoning ie AC's sex-magic wasn't sex-magic. It was an end-result of sublimated damaged sexuality ie a shield.

d: Ok so if we established that AC as an M.T. could do no wrong then why did his sex-magick workings fail?

We have not established that VVVVV 8=3 (or so he disclosed to the Exempt Adepts) performed any sex-magic workings ... only that the demon Crowley (or one of his higher personas) did such things.

I see Ignant’s reasoning ie AC’s sex-magic wasn’t sex-magic.

Yeah, maybe it wasn't.

@tiger :

Has the lot of women trapped in victorian marriages improved?
Since Queen Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901, and the age of consent at the end of that era was, I believe, 14, any woman (girl, in fact) marrying at the end of this period, and born in 1887, would be 142 now. Therefore the question of whether her lot would have improved would be irrelevant, as she would be long ago stone dead.

@dom :

You’re confused. I didn’t claim to have a source. I was wondering if anyone knew if he ever discussed why workings failed.
*Sigh*. In Reply # 112937, you queried, "why did he [A.C.] say that these workings failed?" I (and to a lesser extent Michael) disputed that he'd ever written they failed because as far as we were aware he hadn't done so, and asked you to point out where that was --- i.e. the source of your contention that he had written that. Got it now?

Basically you and Shiva are saying that an M.T. can do no wrong? That is, they are beyond bad karma?
Myself and Shiva are not saying exactly the same thing in this context, but near enough in supernal terms. (A 10=1 would be beyond bad karma by definition. In my opinion an M.T., being positioned inbetween that and an Adept on the ToL, would conceivably still have some karma, but how much would be for a whole other debate.)

Ok so if we established that AC as an M.T. could do no wrong then why did his sex-magick workings fail?
That is the $64.000 question here. But I'm not entirely comfortable with an M.T. "can do no wrong"

I see Ignant’s reasoning ie AC’s sex-magic wasn’t sex-magic.
Then what was (it) ?

Y jOn

@jamiebarter

*Sigh*. In Reply # 112937, you queried, “why did he [A.C.] say that these workings failed?” I (and to a lesser extent Michael) disputed that he’d ever written they failed because as far as we were aware he hadn’t done so, and asked you to point out where that was — i.e. the source of your contention that he had written that. Got it now?

Yes I know what I said I didn’t claim to have a source. I was wondering if anyone knew if he ever discussed why workings failed. when I originally said "what did he say?"

Do you mind if we wrap up this Abott and Costello sketch?

Cheers.

That is the $64.000 question here. But I’m not entirely comfortable with an M.T. “can do no wrong”

Which part of you is uncomfortable about it?

Yeah that's what Wilson discusses in his bio of AC. He says that Grant had that attitude that AC was a Nietzschean superman who shouldn't be criticised. Sounds like hero-worship for sure.

@dom

I see Ignant’s reasoning ie AC’s sex-magic wasn’t sex-magic.

Of course it was sex-magic. It was sex used for magical ends (no pun intended), and hence it was sex-magic. There is a question over how effective was the technique, but by any definition it was sex-magic.

@jamie

I surmise you don’t interpret these “deeper strata of consciousness than the individual” as being equivalent to “divine”, then?

No I don't, anymore than I regard the reaches of outer space as being "equivalent to 'divine'". I can see what you're driving at, though. There is a similarity here with Spare. The following passage comes from Clifford Bax's Ideas and People, and concerns a lunch meeting to which he invited several people, including Spare, who spoke about his sigillisation techniques:

Becoming more involved within the fields of metaphysics, he [Spare] expounded a theory that a man’s conditions are caused by his subconscious desires. The subconscious mind, being all-wise (he told us), wills the environment that shall strengthen the weak places of the soul: and he commented with a smile, “I suppose my own subconscious desire is to be poor! Whatever you really want, you can get. The want rises first in the conscious mind, but you have to make the subconscious desire it too. And you can do this by inventing a symbol of the thing which you want — wealth, a woman, fame or a country cottage, it’s all alike. The symbol drops down into the subconscious. You have to forget all about it. In fact, you must play at hide-and-seek with yourself. And while you’re wanting that particular thing or person, you must resolutely starve all your lesser desires. By doing that, you make the whole self, conscious and subconscious, flow toward your main object. And you'll obtain it.

Like Crowley, Spare here outlines a technique which he maintains is infallible, and yet - again, like Crowley - admits that it may not actually work on occasions.

@Michael Staley :

Of course it was sex-magic. [...]
Thank you, Michael. That was precisely the point I was trying to make too.

@dom :

Do you mind if we wrap up this Abott and Costello sketch?
Be my guest! I was growing weary of trying to explain myself.

"That is the $64.000 question here. But I’m not entirely comfortable with an M.T. “can do no wrong”"
--- Which part of you is uncomfortable about it?
My big toe. What do you mean, which part? Someone who can "do no wrong" would be infallible, yes? Needing to do no further work on themselves, could even be said to be perfect... If this description could fit "anyone" it would be an Ipsissimus, rather than an M.T. But even with that I'm not quite 100% comfortable as it would still beg the question, would there be nothing for the Ipsissimus to do other than "drop dead"?
Now you try to answer 'personal' questions put in a similar vein in future for a change, without managing to cry off with paranoia...

Yeah that’s what Wilson discusses in his bio of AC. He says that Grant had that attitude that AC was a Nietzschean superman who shouldn’t be criticised. Sounds like hero-worship for sure.
Again, some page reference to check the source for your astonishing allegation would be sooooo nice...

YO j n

@Michael :

It appears, like many other things, the matter comes down to subjective definition but in terms of the "spectrum of consciousness" would there be anything which you'd accept (believe in) as being "divine"?

"I supposed my own subconscious desire is to be poor! Whatever you really want, you can get [...]"

Yes, it rather seems so --- that it might be Spare's true will, to put it another way --- unusual and against the common motivation of people though that is. And not too difficult for him to "get", if he "really want[ed]" it, too!

N Joy

@jamiebarter

Not my astonishing allegation but Colin Wilson's allegation. I'll get the page reference soon.

@dom

Not my astonishing allegation but Colin Wilson’s allegation. I’ll get the page reference soon.

OK

Michael Staley: Like Crowley, Spare here outlines a technique which he maintains is infallible, and yet – again, like Crowley – admits that it may not actually work ...

I don't know Spare's track record well enough to say, but AC's has been discussed.

So, to sum up: according to the 20th century's two top experts, sex magick is infallible, except when it doesn't work.

@ignant666

So, to sum up: according to the 20th century’s two top experts, sex magick is infallible, except when it doesn’t work.

I was comparing the two on the basis that both of them advanced techniques which they at one time lauded as infallible, but later spoke of caveats why they might not work, at least as intended. Spare's technique isn't sex-magic per se; sex can be used, but is not indispensible.

Only once did I use sex-magic for what one might (yielding for a moment to the glamours of the Manichean dichotomy) term "material" ends, and that was on behalf of someone else; it had the opopsite effect to that intended, and ever since I have left it alone. On the other hand, I have used sex-magic for what one might term mystical ends, with good results.

There's no set of instructions in a manual which have only to be followed for success to be assured. I think the following passage by Kenneth Grant, from a letter he wrote in 1991, is very pertinent.

"The Alphabet of Desire, in which each letter represents a ‘sensation thinking’, is to be distinguished sharply from the system of sigils. The construction of the sigils is a purely mental process. The letters of the Alphabet of Desire, however, are ‘sentient symbols’ evoked directly from the subconsciousness on the eruption of a particular sensation. These assume their own symbolic form. To an artist such as Spare this form was naturally linear; it might appear otherwise in the case of a musician, a mathematician, a sculptor, a poet, or an engineer, etc. Each individual evolves or objectivises his own particular response to sensation."

We have to find, and utilise, our own language, our own sensations, our own responses. This might, but need not, involve sex. It may be that Crowley hadn't evolved the correct technique; or it may be that the technique as Crowley used it is a blind alley. I have had my own successes as well as failures, and I think there's a lot more to be discovered in the way of conditions.

If at first you don’t succeed try try again
build merit with right action;
selfless giving instead of taking
and it might not result
for the strata of being that remains in lust
but open to other forms of expression
kind a teaching perhaps

“ And Adonai said: The strong brown reaper swept his swathe and rejoiced. The wise man counted his muscles, and pondered, and understood not, and was sad.

Reap thou, and rejoice ! “

Liber LXV 56.

What is with this recent obsession with counting seafood (shrimps the other day, today mussels), Tiger? Worried about all those mollusc-incarnations coming up?

@michaelstayley

Doing magic for someone else? No wonder it failed. The karmic variables are just too complex. Try again but this time for yourself.

" What is with this recent obsession with counting seafood (shrimps the other day, today mussels), Tiger? Worried about all those mollusc-incarnations coming up? "

The outermost boundaries of consciousness
extending to the outposts of being
the Ahamkara constantly shifting
The elemental larve, The shells of the qabalists
on the shores of Marah, the great sea .

" There was a maiden that strayed among the corn, and sighed; then grew a new birth, a narcissus, and therein she forgot her sighing and her loneliness.

Even instantly rode Hades heavily upon her, and ravished her away.
among the nasty things at the out posts of being "
Liber LXV 47. 48.

" Stained is the purple of thy mouth, O brilliant one, with the white glory of the lips of Adonai. "
Liber LXV 59.

@jamiebarter

Re reference;

Chapter 5 (pages 87 and p88) Colin Wilson's 'Crowley The Nature of the Beast' bio. Aquarian press 1987

Yo ignant666 got some Balsamo vinegar Joe with with them mussels ?

https://images.app.goo.gl/fWLX69PxYQdMjb9C9

Further on that reference above from CW's Crowley bio. He quotes from AC who said he had transcended intellect and that this achievement is genius in the Overman but insanity in the ordinary man. CW puts this quote at the crux of understanding AC in that it expresses his vision of his world which was "beyond good and evil". CW adds that AC saw himself as the heir of F.M.Nietzsche and he describes his (AC'S) kicking of his mother-in-law down the stairs as an expression of such conviction.

CW states that AC knew that living out this vision would involve a lot of misunderstanding and hostility and in his own eyes he reassured himself that he was therefore a martyr. This is when CW cites that that is exactly how Kenneth Grant, Regardie and Cammell saw Crowley also.

d: ... and in his own eyes he reassured himself that he was therefore a martyr.

If true, then he was still living in the Christian paradigm of his youth ... which, by the way, spills over from time to time in his writings.

@shiva

I'd say that the term "martyr" is Wilson's not Crowley's.

@dom :

Not my astonishing allegation but Colin Wilson’s allegation. I’ll get the page reference soon.

Thanks for belatedly supplying the page reference dom but unfortunately as it turns out I don't have the book to hand as it's in a carboard box somewhere with a lot of other similar stuff I don't look at very much these days. But I don't suppose a lot of people reading this would have immediate access to it either, what with it being about thirty years ago and out of print. I suppose it would be altogether too much to expect you to provide the relevant extract so that the accuracy of your allegations can be checked as well as the general context they're embedded in?

You were rebuked about not supplying proper sources on several occasions before, not only by me, and for a brief while it seemed to have sunk in so that you actually did it a couple of times before inevitably, almost as if you just couldn't help yourself, you slid back into these same old pernicious habits again.

Any confusion such as that referred to just now about whether "martyr" was Crowley's or Wilson's attribution would have been negated had you actually been bothered to retype the few lines or relevant paragraph(s) in question, a task of herculean proportions I don't think which shouldn't have taken up much more than five minutes of your precious time (depending on your typing speed). As I said, too much of a small public service to perform for your fellow Lashtalians for anybody to expect, obviously.

There's no indication anywhere in your additional paraphrase contained in the subsequent "further to" post of #113026 (above) of Grant having an attitude that A.C. "shouldn't be criticised" either, even less that his demeanour would be anything like one of (blind) hero-worship "for sure". Au contraire Grant could be quite critical of Crowley on occasion, certainly. Without so far the evidence to back it up you seem to be putting an awful lot of words into his mouth, by way of Wilson.

Finally: not sure yet what all of it's got to do with sex magick working /s either, but carry on do.

@Tiger :

You don't give any Chapters to refer back with for your Liber LXV quotes but at least you made the attempt to bother. However if possible could you also please supply the relevance of them to SM, the OT (let alone that of crustaceans, molluscs et al also).

Y on J

@ignant
What no sauce bud ?

@jamie
Well it was all so evident the other day .
The Luminiferous aether swirled and for a moment
The Serpent with an arrow;
Giuseppe Balsamo and Master R on keys .
I figured all you Adepts could sort it out .
and now just rattle snakes on skewers
oh well .

" There was a maiden that strayed among the corn, and sighed; then grew a new birth, a narcissus, and therein she forgot her sighing and her loneliness. "

" Even instantly rode Hades heavily upon her, and ravished her away. "
Persephone, the earth bound soul. Corn = material nourishment; its result is sorrow. Narcissus = the sexual instinct flowering as Beauty.
Instantly the soul forgets the corn'' and desires the flower, Hades comes and carries her off. Hades is the lord of Hell,'' i.e., the dark and secret but divine Soul within every man and woman. The rape thus means that the desire for Beauty awakes the Unconscious Self who then takes possession of the Soul, and enthrones her, only allowing her return to earth (Knowledge of the material world) at certain seasons, in order to attend to the welfare of mankind.
Liber LXV 47,48. the first chapter pg65 The Equinox Volume V No2

" Stained is the purple of thy mouth, O brilliant one, with the white glory of the lips of Adonai. ”
Every act of the Adept is really the kiss of his Angel.(A.C.)
Not exactly what is meant here; for the purple of the grape juice on the Adept‟s lips is stained with the white glory of the lips of the Angel. Better say that every magickally creative act of the Adept is energized or guided or aided by the spiritual energy of his Angel. See LXV III.13-17 and the comments thereon.(Motta)
Liber LXV 59. the first chapter pg69 The Equinox Volume V No2

I figure there's some sex and magick in there somewhere .

I recall reading; Motta claims the published diaries were scrubbed and that the diaries were really about A.C. trying to have a conversation with his angel. or something like that . i can't find it now.

@dom
would be nice to read some of what you got .

I'm a one fingered typer .

Tigre: ... the published diaries were scrubbed and that the diaries were really about ...

I can vouch for the scrubbing in another area: The Crowley-Germer Letters have been published on-line. As such, they appear to be only 10-20% of the original correspondence, which is very interesting (the correspondence or the %? --- both!).

Strangely, only the letters showing support, either abstractly, imaginarily, or practically, for the present Grand Lodge or its ideals, were deemed fit for public display.

There's more to this story, but I really have to depar, right now! Maybe later, AL-i-gater.

@jamiebarter

So you can't be arsed rooting through your cardboard box to find CW's book yet I get reprimanded even after I supply the page number and provide the quote you want?

The saga continues as I want to know where,when and how Grant criticised AC.

Ok "hero worship" was a term I shouldn't have used for Grant's admiration for AC especially since I never saw any sources or quotes provided by CW as backup.

Anyway to get back to the OP.

Ignant, maybe check out the T.O.P.Y. sigils books Zand try the methods if this gobbledygook thing isn't doing it.

Thanx for the advice. However, my motivation in starting this thread was not to seek advice as to how to get better sex magick results myself. There aren't many things that i want that low magick might provide, and i use other, simpler methods to achieve them.

As i said in the OP, i don't dispute the efficacy of sex as a means of blowing the mind or other high magick ends- that works.

But as a means of achieving material things, or the love of others, it failed AC over and over again; despite this, he continued to tout the OTO "secret" as infallible. From this thread, it appears the same may have been true of Spare.

As to david's latest suggestion, the life history of TOPY founder/supremo Genesis P. does not suggest that they have any infallible magickal method of generating desired material results, whether sexual or otherwise. Generating annoying music, absolutely (said as a semi-fan), but wealth, power/influence/reputation, health, not so much.

I think GPO might be wealthy. Who knows? Then again wasn't he trying to raise funds for his chemotherapy? He/she/they for any grammar Nazis.

As for reputation, isn't he established as an important figure in the history of magic and Thelema?

@Shiva
Let us hear more of the story .

d: yet I get reprimanded even after I supply the page number and provide the quote you want?

Yes. There's a primordial principle at work here. It goes like this:
"You can't win!" (no matter what you do)

Ig: .. failed AC over and over again.; despite this, he continued to tout the OTO “secret” as infallible.

This is called deceptive marketing. Who would want to join his Order if there wasn't a fabulous prize involved? The parable of the stubborn donkey, a long pole, a piece of string, and a carrot come to mind. Please pay your dues on time.

d: As for reputation, isn’t he established as an important figure in the history of magic and Thelema?

Anybody who does really wierd things tends to get a reputation. I'd not suspect Gen of being a Thelemic scholar or a proponent of the philosophy.
"Important figure" seems to be a bit of an inflated term.

Dom and Jamie:

Colin Wilson should have been just left out of this. In his book he assumes that Crowley saw himself as the Nietzschean Superman and simply proclaims that's how Cammell, Regardie and Grant saw him also. No quotes, no proof, no nothing, no infallibilty, no do-not-critisize-Crowley. Regardie? Superman Crowley? Come on. Grant? Surely not. Cammell? Maybe poetry-wise. It's just the usual Colin Wilson having deciphered "The Nature of the Beast" for us. An opinion, not more, not less.

Let's keep Wilson out of this thread...

Love=Law
Lutz

@dom :

So you can’t be arsed rooting through your cardboard box to find CW’s book
Your verging-on-the-bumptious and opinionated stance, always rather irritating along with your three=steps=forward-then-two-steps back mode of progress in general, is now becoming most tedious. To clarify matters yet again it was never a case of my "can't be arsed" --- that is mixing it up with your own lack of motivation surely --- as explained to you: unfortunately even though I'd wanted to be able to look the page reference up myself it's unwieldy to keep lots of books around that you don't look at for ages so I had stored it in a cardboard box. Maybe I should have mentioned, although at the time I scarcely thought it necessary to have to go into such additional graphic details, that the box in question is not easily accessible and is situated in a basement storage facility at another locale not nearby in the neighbourhood. Are you satisfied now?

yet I get reprimanded even after I supply the page number and provide the quote you want?
Yes, and rightly so you lazy cowson. Like I also said, there's plenty of people reading this who wouldn't have the book either. Are you as blithely & contemptuously dismissive towards all of them as well?

As usual you ignore the main meat of my points in the interests of making a meal instead out of the small crumbs you're able to. Such as my point at the end (what's all of it got to do with sex magick working /s) and where Grant is supposed to have said Crowley should be beyond criticism. How you can ask

the saga continues as I want to know where, when and how Grant criticised AC
is beyond me; the obligation is on you old fruit to provide the evidence for Grant believing A.C. was beyond criticism, not me: provide something substantial for that, and depending on how good a fist you make of it I'll then supply a quid pro quo.

Ok “hero worship” was a term I shouldn’t have used for Grant’s admiration for AC especially since I never saw any sources or quotes provided by CW as backup.
No you shouldn't have & especially as you went on to qualify it as if it were a dead certainty with "for sure".

F'sure! (Pshaw!)
N oy

I think the question many of us are asking (he said disingenuously) is:

If the the OTO secret was infallible way back in AC's day, more than 70 years ago, and has presumably advanced much further (so extra-infallible now), now that the new (c)OTO has been in operation for longer than AC was a, um, member (geddit?), why isn't Bill B. getting rich selling his semen in tiny bottles, the way his predecessor as OHO tried to?

@ignant666 :

[W]hy isn’t Bill B. getting rich selling his semen in tiny bottles, the way his predecessor as OHO tried to?

I don't know what the medical term is (maybe Shiva can assist) but --- perhaps he has difficulty (to use the vernacular} "getting it [to stand] up"?

P.S., lawyers please note: I said "perhaps"
J

jb: Are you satisfied now?

Never!

Please report to your nearest Grand Tribunal office and report yourself as a Blasphemer Against the Profit, for your "stand up comedy."

Wham, bam, thank you man. (or not)

Boom-bang-a-bam, tish!
N Joy

@dom

The saga continues as I want to know where,when and how Grant criticised AC.

Grant expressed reservations about several aspects of Crowley's work.

The most well-known example is Crowley's approach to sex magick. As Grant grew increasly interested in Tantra, he came to regard the IXº as severely lacking in that it took no account of the kalas, or female emanations. Throughout the volumes of the Typhonian Trilogies, Grant made many references to - and quoted extracts from - a Comment on the Anandalahari which David Curwen had lent him in 1946. In addition, Grant rejected Crowley's formula of homosexual sex-magic which Crowley enshrined as XIº.

Another exammple is Advaita Vedanta, of which Crowley remarked in Letter 5 of Magick without Tears "I hate this doctrine so rabidly that I can hardly trust myself to present it fairly!" (pp.54-55 in the Regardie edition). Grant became increasingly interested in the work of Ramana Maharshi, and had a major insight into advaita in the summer of 1952. Advaita is probably the major substratum running throughout the Trilogies; the chapter 'The Madhamaka & Crowley' in Outer Gateways explores, amongst other things, Crowley's attitude to advaita.

Grant's admiration for Crowley's work is readily apparent throughout the Trilogies, but he was by no means uncritical.

“ There’s a primordial principle at work here. It goes like this:
“You can’t win!” (no matter what you do) “

For loves sake
look out when
turns
scarlet
Kali yuga
found you
in that
vam asi

How’d a self incarnate a situation like that ?
for cycles sake

@michaelstayley

Thanks. Very informative. What I suspect though is that Wilson thinks that Grant and Regardie are a little too liberal when it comes to processing some of AC'S more crazy-assed 'rock n roll' moments precisely because they think that the square (he(r)d(s) just wouldn't understand.

@dom

Colin Wilson had a high regard for Kenneth Grant. I remember an issue of Books and Bookmen in 1972 carrying a review by him of The Magical Revival. I also remember a review by him of Hecate's Fountain, published in I think Skoob Occult Review, in the course of which he said that Grant was one of the most interesting people alive. I dunno about "crazy-assed 'rock n roll' moments", but Wilson knew enough about Grant to know that he wasn't a blind follower.

Nor were the other two you mention - Regardie and Cammell. Regardie set out his reservations about Crowley in The Eye in the Triangle. Cammell found The Book of the Law to be far too strong a meat for his comfort, and broke with Crowley.

I doubt that any of the people who knew Crowley were "blind followers", because they would have been all too aware of his shortcomings.

@Michael Staley :

I doubt that any of the people who knew Crowley were “blind followers”, because they would have been all too aware of his shortcomings.

The only exception I can think of to this dubious accolade might possibly be Norman Stanley Fletcher --- I mean, Mudd? He was surely aware of his shortcomings but followed him with a degree of myopia nonetheless.

N Joy

I think the question many of us are asking (he said disingenuously) is:
If the the OTO secret was infallible way back in AC’s day, more than 70 years ago, and has presumably advanced much further (so extra-infallible now), now that the new (c)OTO has been in operation for longer than AC was a, um, member (geddit?), why isn’t Bill B. getting rich selling his semen in tiny bottles, the way his predecessor as OHO tried to?

Because nowadays it's not so seminal...…………….. (bush rolls across desert)

On that note I think it's time for a thread lock.

@dom

On that note I think it’s time for a thread lock.

Your opinion is noted.

If you're no longer interested in the thread, then please feel at liberty to exit the conversation and honour some other thread with your attentions. Some other participants in the thread may wish to take it further; we'll somehow just have to soldier on without your participation.