How can one practic...
 
Notifications
Clear all

How can one practice magick with out mucking up your life?  

Page 2 / 5
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/04/2010 5:12 am  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
There's a lot of sense in what you say Los, but it's missing some of the "juiciness" of actual Crowley stuff.

Well, of course it is. I wasn't answering the question, "Explain Aleister Crowley's occult practices." I was answering the question, "what would [you] tell someone about the HGA that has no idea what Magick even is?"
Crowley's occult practices -- juicy or not -- are not relevant to a post where I'm talking about how I would describe the HGA to someone who knows nothing at all about magick.

I mean, I might not even mention Crowley's name to someone who doesn't know anything about magick, let alone explain his occult practices.

His recommended course was one of both mystical practices and magickal practices, and you should major in what you are attracted to, yes, but it's also recommended that you have a broad familiarity with all methods (especially if you're going to be in a position to teach).

A broad study of a subject is always a good idea (how do you know what interests you if you don't know what there is to be interested in?), but the vast, vast, vast majority of people aren't going to be occultists, and an even smaller number of occultists are going to be teachers.

But my point was this: let's say you are attracted to the occult and to ceremonial magick in particular. It's not going to work to simply be told, "well, do the experiment and see for yourself!" No amount of repetition of the LBRP, Liber Resh, Liber V, the Star Ruby and Sapphire, Enochian scrying sessions, meditative visions and the like are going to be of very much use at all unless you have a crystal clear understanding of 1) what the HGA is and 2) what you're trying to do when you "invoke" it.

If 1 and 2 are whatever you decide that they are, if they can be any daydream or fantasy that fills your mind and strikes you as "invigorating" and "meaningful," if your method is just endless ritual repetition and guided daydreaming sessions with the faith that they will (somehow?) reveal the true will...exactly how is that supposed to work?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/04/2010 5:32 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Which puts my analogy of H2O and your comparison of that analogy to the HGA in which position?

You: "Water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Here's what a molecule is and how you observe it...."
Me: "What you call 'yourself' is composed of a conscious mind with thoughts and feels and a 'true self' that is the source of your natural inclinations. Here is how those parts function and how to observe them..."

For me, the point of the analogy is that you can't start doing experiments until you understand the terminology and the goal of doing the experiments.

So the very first thing you are telling me, if I don't know anything about Magick, is that I have spent many years misreading myself and the world, forming false pictures to make some sort of self image, or "world image"... or even worldview. While I personally know what you are saying, hermeneutics included, what is a young man who has no knowledge beyond say, the Bible Belt, going to think?

Look, your initial question posited someone who knows nothing about magick (which I took to mean someone not inclined towards magick), and I answered it from that perspective. Now you're proposing a new scenario -- someone who is potentially interested in magick *and* has a childhood indoctrination in the Bible Belt.

Honestly, I wouldn't even begin to try to talk to such a person about "magick." You had it right about the "student" phase. I would tell this kid to do a *lot* of reading -- lots of different viewpoints, lots of different beliefs, lots of formal logic and arguments against the existence of god and against the existence of morality.

Ahem, I haven't known any young practitioner who, with even decent guidance, has begun Liber Samekh and Liber V right away. especially not properly. The LBRP I can understand young seekers doing, as I myself did the LBRP daily for about 6 months before I even attempted to go further in my legitimate practices. Scrying (real scrying) and Asana (real Asana) came later. but that's just me.

The time is irrevelant; it takes time to learn how to do anything. But how's any of that supposed to help someone discover his will if he doesn't have 1) a crystal clear understanding of what he's trying to do, and 2) an understanding of how these practices are intended to *aid* in doing what he's trying to do?

How do you think these practices actually result in someone discovering their will (*other* than the way I've outlined)?

I mean, basically, I think you nailed it when you said "knowledge, especially at the beginner level, is the best way to begin." This is what I'm talking about. And if the goal is to discover the will, to attain KC of the HGA, knowledge *must* begin with a clear understanding of what is meant by HGA and the will and the goal that all of the various methods have in common.

The process is indeed personal and individual, but it does no one any good to suggest that the process cannot be spoken of and sensibly described; further, I would argue that it is difficult to achieve success without an understanding of what the process broadly entails.

I don't have the time now to respond to the rest of your post, but if there is something you're really interested in discussing, let me know.

Camlion:

This is not a question of my disagreeing with Hessle's conclusions, necessarily, I happen not to disagree with some of them. It is a question of whether or not his conclusions merit consideration in the first place.

Well, in order to know that you "happen not to disagree with some of them," you must have already considered at least a few of them and decided that you do not disagree with them. And further, if you "do not disagree with some of them," then you are implicitly saying that you do disagree with other conclusions, which is what I asked you about.

Now, I asked you for an example of a conclusion you disagree with and an explanation of the evidence that leads you to draw a different conclusion. I guessed -- correctly, it seems -- that you would not be able to do that. You instead post an unrelated exchange in which you are asked to define a term in your own words and fail to do so. I'm at a loss for how to respond to something like this -- did you think that I wouldn't notice that you didn't come close to doing what I requested?

As for measuring "actual practical experience in subjects germane to Crowley, Thelema and Magick," I would submit that a person's ability to speak clearly and lucidly about a subject is the only reliable test of "practical experience."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 6:40 am  
"Los" wrote:
As for measuring "actual practical experience in subjects germane to Crowley, Thelema and Magick," I would submit that a person's ability to speak clearly and lucidly about a subject is the only reliable test of "practical experience."

I'm sorry, Los. I forgot briefly that I was addressing someone who probably has less actual experience with the matters at hand than Hessle does. A person's apparent ability to speak clearly and lucidly about a subject with which they have no significant experience is called a bluff.

Hessle has thrived for years on little combat victories on the Internet to compensate for a low sense of self-esteem, and also happens to despise occultists - while admiring Aleister Crowley at the same time, a man who was an occultist. Some of AC's views jive with Hessle's, but many do not; so, in Hessle's view of things, Crowley gradually ceases to be an occultist at all, and he becomes more and more like Hessle himself.

Anyway, that's how I see Hessle, an opinion offered in contrast to that of another member in this thread.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/04/2010 7:09 am  

Your failure to address my question is again noted.

Anyone reading this thread can see that you have failed to provide any specific example of a false conclusion that Erwin has drawn and evidence that leads you to a different conclusion.

I strongly suspect that this is due to the fact that you have not read Erwin's work in any serious way, a suspicion confirmed by the way you bizarrely mischaracterize his work as attempting to deny that Crowley was an occultist.

At any rate, if you ever feel like actually addressing my question, I'm sure the community would be eager to read your specific example and evidence.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 8:06 am  

Hessel may be kind of a jerk sometimes and he may be a bit confused between loosening of self image from it's habitual patterns and the totally annihilation of self/conscious awareness in the highest Samadhi.

But aside from these minor misunderstandings in the vague occult terminology and their abstract and subjective states. I find little flaw in his methods and conclusions. Further I find the only actual harm that practicing Magick does in one's life is that other people make fun of you, or try to call you out as a devil worshiper of some kind.

The dangers of Magick are like the dangers of taking psychodelic drugs or psychotherapy, it breaks down your defense mechanism and makes you deal with your deepest fears. Magick however is more not as drastic as drugs, it is subtle exposing the deep mind a little at a time. And unlike psychotherapy magick is self directed, so there is less chance of being lead astray by the suggestions of the therapist.

If there is any real danger in Magick it is than once you strip away your social conditioning, the TRUE WILL may express itself in ways that the people around you find strange, confusing, or hostile. Like Marla in fight club your freedom may draw attention to their own fears and inhibitions and this might frighten others.

There have been studies than when apes are given LSD, later when the drug has worn off, the other apes act strange around them, as if they are outsiders. Since they no longer fallow the social behaviors of the tribe, the others get confused by them.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 3:56 pm  
"spike418" wrote:
"Maldoror" wrote:
the more lucid members

Lucidity is not a merit badge, nor is it synonymous with being correct, don't be mislead

In my oh so humble opinion- never atruer word (or phrase) spoken Spike.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 4:08 pm  

Los wrote "For example, it's well within the proper domain of reason for it to be used to decide the truth value of claims about the world. That's been one of its primary functions throughout human history, and it's done an admirable job."

I am picking this as a point and not questioning your greater reasoning, however, has it really!? Think again, as each generation seems to find that the supposed good reasoning of their predecessors to be childish nonesence based on further research. Perhaps we shall eventually come full circle and find "it's all in the egg".
Kind regards,


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 4:59 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Whatever AC might have thought of the objective/subjective status of the magick stuff, he certainly practiced ritual and astral travel, and recommended others to practice these things. His recommended course was one of both mystical practices and magickal practices, and you should major in what you are attracted to, yes, but it's also recommended that you have a broad familiarity with all methods (especially if you're going to be in a position to teach).

Again, whatever he may have thought about the metaphysical status of it, Crowley never denies the seeming reality of magick stuff (spirits, gods, etc.). And he recommends that people engage in some kind of practice that will lead to them seeming to encounter and converse with what seem to be discarnate intelligences.

(In actual fact, as AC says somewhere, the question of the metaphysical status (subjective?/objective?) of these things is neither here nor there, since the experiences of seeming deities and demons (or what have you) is (one must suppose) sufficiently educational and transformative.)

Perfectly put, George. The process of introspective rationalism advocated by Hessle is a valid and effective tool made available to the Thelemite by way of the Crowley corpus, there is no denying that. It is, however, only one of the tools in that set. As you say, in the course of the individual's Work, he or she "should major in what [they] are attracted to," whether it be this tool or one of the others included in the set, and would be very wise, according to Crowley's ideas, 'to minor' in something that would insure balance within them.

The mischief comes about when one of tools in the set is presented as the only way for everyone, and those attracted by their natures to other tools in the set are cast as idiots, fools and dupes, mostly for the opportunity to publicly bully them into embarrasment. This, as I noted above, is done for the same reason that bullies everywhere bully people, to compensate for their own low sense of self-esteem - a personal imbalance that is not a good sign in a person who purports to teach Thelema or Magick, worldviews dependant upon personal internal and external balance. Hence my take on Hessle, his own behavior does not speak well for the medicine he prescribes - and calls attention to the lack of balanced ingredients in the prescription. Such an imbalanced person is a poor spokesman for introspective rationalism, and would be for any other tool in the Crowlean set.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 5:02 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Your failure to address my question is again noted.

Anyone reading this thread can see that you have failed to provide any specific example of a false conclusion that Erwin has drawn and evidence that leads you to a different conclusion.

I strongly suspect that this is due to the fact that you have not read Erwin's work in any serious way, a suspicion confirmed by the way you bizarrely mischaracterize his work as attempting to deny that Crowley was an occultist.

At any rate, if you ever feel like actually addressing my question, I'm sure the community would be eager to read your specific example and evidence.

Please see my post just above this one, Los.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 5:09 pm  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
"spike418" wrote:
"Maldoror" wrote:
the more lucid members

Lucidity is not a merit badge, nor is it synonymous with being correct, don't be mislead

In my oh so humble opinion- never atruer word (or phrase) spoken Spike.

Of course it isn't a merit badge, it's entirely possible to be spectacularly wrong with startling clarity. However, it seems to me that lucidity can be a virtue when you're trying to discuss subtle or difficult subjects.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/04/2010 5:14 pm  
"Los" wrote:
You: "Water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Here's what a molecule is and how you observe it...."
Me: "What you call 'yourself' is composed of a conscious mind with thoughts and feels and a 'true self' that is the source of your natural inclinations. Here is how those parts function and how to observe them..."

93,

You took my explanation of what would be in my example elemental functions, and applied them to the HGA. Quite simply, you are assuming that the original poster of this thread knew anything about the HGA already, and was looking for more information when he was quite possibly just looking for a way to tell his parent he wanted to start studying Occultism. If however, the original poster is not a "beginner" then he must be a whiner at any rate, and we perhaps should not be entertaining this thread, especially since he seems to have neither confirmed or denied his actual position..

For me, the point of the analogy is that you can't start doing experiments until you understand the terminology and the goal of doing the experiments.

And do you not "normally" create the elemental weapons before performing rites of the Rosy Cross?

Look, your initial question posited someone who knows nothing about magick (which I took to mean someone not inclined towards magick), and I answered it from that perspective. Now you're proposing a new scenario -- someone who is potentially interested in magick *and* has a childhood indoctrination in the Bible Belt.

How would "knows nothing about Magick" even begin to equate to "not inclined towards Magick"? When you knew nothing about Magick we you still inclined towards it? That said, it is the exact same scenario, you just keep making up your own scenarios and reading things into my words which are not there.

Even so, you are still going to tell someone who is "not inclined towards Magick" that their entire worldview has been skewed from the beginning? Are you not preaching hellfire and brimstone to the uninitiated?

The Bible Belt reference was meant to designate a definite case of extremity in the lack of knowledge base and overall ignorance (not meant in any demeaning way, for any Christians that read this Site) that one would assume comes from such "Bible Belt" culture. It was merely an example of the nature of the mind you would be trying to tell about this "HGA" you spoke of.

Honestly, I wouldn't even begin to try to talk to such a person about "magick." You had it right about the "student" phase. I would tell this kid to do a *lot* of reading -- lots of different viewpoints, lots of different beliefs, lots of formal logic and arguments against the existence of god and against the existence of morality.

Los, that quite contradicts your original statement, sir. Not your first on this thread, as I think we all just sort of tossed out a generic answer initially until the subject of the infamous (LOL!) Erwin arose.

Recall that you quoted Erwin on some Thelema fundamental crap and used the "fundamental" quote to turn an analogy of fundamental chemistry into something about the HGA. This is again on a thread where the person is either A) posting this as an earnest beginner, or B) a troll.

The time is irrevelant; it takes time to learn how to do anything. But how's any of that supposed to help someone discover his will if he doesn't have 1) a crystal clear understanding of what he's trying to do, and 2) an understanding of how these practices are intended to *aid* in doing what he's trying to do?

I would like a show of hands from those who had an absolute crystal clear understanding of anything until the K&C, and perhaps even further. Yes, I'm using "crystal clear" in the sense of a clear crystal without any blemishes (lacks of knowledge) in the regimen.

How do you think these practices actually result in someone discovering their will (*other* than the way I've outlined)?

The subject of the thread wasn't "How can you discover your true Will without mucking up your life", Los. That is what I have been saying. The thread was either A) an earnest beginner question, or B) a troll.

I mean, basically, I think you nailed it when you said "knowledge, especially at the beginner level, is the best way to begin." This is what I'm talking about. And if the goal is to discover the will, to attain KC of the HGA, knowledge *must* begin with a clear understanding of what is meant by HGA and the will and the goal that all of the various methods have in common.

Yes, but how many true beginners start off with any knowledge of the HGA, and even in rigid systems, how long before they actually start practicing those parts of the systems? It is true that the Probationer (for example) is to memorize a chapter of Liber LXV, but even then it is only reading. One has to assume too, that Crowley did not intend for young teenagers to be knocking at the door of Thelema. That said, one would assume some prior knowledge of Magick exists before Thelema in many cases.

I think that you and I are possibly taking a similar approach to this thread, but on different planes. I answered the thread as if I was talking to a true beginner, and you simply answered it as though this person had already been practicing for a while and was complaining about Magick mucking up his life. Interesting, to say the least.

The process is indeed personal and individual, but it does no one any good to suggest that the process cannot be spoken of and sensibly described; further, I would argue that it is difficult to achieve success without an understanding of what the process broadly entails.

I don't have the time now to respond to the rest of your post, but if there is something you're really interested in discussing, let me know.

I posit:

1. The original poster is merely a troll.
2. You jumped into a discussion of Erwin and immediately began crossing the planes with rhetoric about the HGA. Or, in nicer terms, you took what many people seemed to have viewed as an earnest beginner question and used quotes from Erwin to turn it into a discussion about the HGA. Our entire conversation from that point was merely an organization of thoughts and planar priorities.
3. No one has disproved either claim.

Discuss that please, when you have the time...

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/04/2010 5:16 pm  
"name538" wrote:
Hessel may be kind of a jerk sometimes and he may be a bit confused between loosening of self image from it's habitual patterns and the totally annihilation of self/conscious awareness in the highest Samadhi.

But aside from these minor misunderstandings in the vague occult terminology and their abstract and subjective states. I find little flaw in his methods and conclusions. Further I find the only actual harm that practicing Magick does in one's life is that other people make fun of you, or try to call you out as a devil worshiper of some kind.

The dangers of Magick are like the dangers of taking psychodelic drugs or psychotherapy, it breaks down your defense mechanism and makes you deal with your deepest fears. Magick however is more not as drastic as drugs, it is subtle exposing the deep mind a little at a time. And unlike psychotherapy magick is self directed, so there is less chance of being lead astray by the suggestions of the therapist.

If there is any real danger in Magick it is than once you strip away your social conditioning, the TRUE WILL may express itself in ways that the people around you find strange, confusing, or hostile. Like Marla in fight club your freedom may draw attention to their own fears and inhibitions and this might frighten others.

There have been studies than when apes are given LSD, later when the drug has worn off, the other apes act strange around them, as if they are outsiders. Since they no longer fallow the social behaviors of the tribe, the others get confused by them.

93,

Way to intro post.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 5:19 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Whatever AC might have thought of the objective/subjective status of the magick stuff, he certainly practiced ritual and astral travel, and recommended others to practice these things. His recommended course was one of both mystical practices and magickal practices, and you should major in what you are attracted to, yes, but it's also recommended that you have a broad familiarity with all methods (especially if you're going to be in a position to teach).

Again, whatever he may have thought about the metaphysical status of it, Crowley never denies the seeming reality of magick stuff (spirits, gods, etc.). And he recommends that people engage in some kind of practice that will lead to them seeming to encounter and converse with what seem to be discarnate intelligences.

(In actual fact, as AC says somewhere, the question of the metaphysical status (subjective?/objective?) of these things is neither here nor there, since the experiences of seeming deities and demons (or what have you) is (one must suppose) sufficiently educational and transformative.)

Perfectly put, George. The process of introspective rationalism advocated by Hessle is a valid and effective tool made available to the Thelemite by way of the Crowley corpus, there is no denying that. It is, however, only one of the tools in that set. As you say, in the course of the individual's Work, he or she "should major in what [they] are attracted to," whether it be this tool or one of the others included in the set, and would be very wise, according to Crowley's ideas, 'to minor' in something that would insure balance within them.

The mischief comes about when one of tools in the set is presented as the only way for everyone, and those attracted by their natures to other tools in the set are cast as idiots, fools and dupes, mostly for the opportunity to publicly bully them into embarrasment. This, as I noted above, is done for the same reason that bullies everywhere bully people, to compensate for their own low sense of self-esteem - a personal imbalance that is not a good sign in a person who purports to teach Thelema or Magick, worldviews dependant upon personal internal and external balance. Hence my take on Hessle, his own behavior does not speak well for the medicine he prescribes - and calls attention to the lack of balanced ingredients in the prescription. Such an imbalanced person is a poor spokesman for introspective rationalism, and would be for any other tool in the Crowlean set.

So are we to take it that if a person acts in a boorish, bullying, selfish fashion it speaks poorly for the medicine they prescribe? Not looking good for Crowley then, is it?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/04/2010 5:26 pm  
"Maldoror" wrote:
So are we to take it that if a person acts in a boorish, bullying, selfish fashion it speaks poorly for the medicine they prescribe? Not looking good for Crowley then, is it?

93,

Examples, please. Examples of this behavior, him claiming it is the only way, and him telling people they must believe him or else...

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 6:04 pm  
"Maldoror" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Whatever AC might have thought of the objective/subjective status of the magick stuff, he certainly practiced ritual and astral travel, and recommended others to practice these things. His recommended course was one of both mystical practices and magickal practices, and you should major in what you are attracted to, yes, but it's also recommended that you have a broad familiarity with all methods (especially if you're going to be in a position to teach).

Again, whatever he may have thought about the metaphysical status of it, Crowley never denies the seeming reality of magick stuff (spirits, gods, etc.). And he recommends that people engage in some kind of practice that will lead to them seeming to encounter and converse with what seem to be discarnate intelligences.

(In actual fact, as AC says somewhere, the question of the metaphysical status (subjective?/objective?) of these things is neither here nor there, since the experiences of seeming deities and demons (or what have you) is (one must suppose) sufficiently educational and transformative.)

Perfectly put, George. The process of introspective rationalism advocated by Hessle is a valid and effective tool made available to the Thelemite by way of the Crowley corpus, there is no denying that. It is, however, only one of the tools in that set. As you say, in the course of the individual's Work, he or she "should major in what [they] are attracted to," whether it be this tool or one of the others included in the set, and would be very wise, according to Crowley's ideas, 'to minor' in something that would insure balance within them.

The mischief comes about when one of tools in the set is presented as the only way for everyone, and those attracted by their natures to other tools in the set are cast as idiots, fools and dupes, mostly for the opportunity to publicly bully them into embarrasment. This, as I noted above, is done for the same reason that bullies everywhere bully people, to compensate for their own low sense of self-esteem - a personal imbalance that is not a good sign in a person who purports to teach Thelema or Magick, worldviews dependant upon personal internal and external balance. Hence my take on Hessle, his own behavior does not speak well for the medicine he prescribes - and calls attention to the lack of balanced ingredients in the prescription. Such an imbalanced person is a poor spokesman for introspective rationalism, and would be for any other tool in the Crowlean set.

So are we to take it that if a person acts in a boorish, bullying, selfish fashion it speaks poorly for the medicine they prescribe? Not looking good for Crowley then, is it?

Rather astute of you. It hasn't been looking "good for Crowley" for this reason among others since his death. Those who come after must deal with a great deal of what is really unnecessary crap because of Crowley's behavior on any number of levels. Lessons learned and errors to be avoided in future.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 6:13 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Maldoror" wrote:
So are we to take it that if a person acts in a boorish, bullying, selfish fashion it speaks poorly for the medicine they prescribe? Not looking good for Crowley then, is it?

93,

Examples, please. Examples of this behavior, him claiming it is the only way, and him telling people they must believe him or else...

93 93/93

AC was not guilty to this great an extent, really, just enough to force some of his later admirers into the uncomfortable role of apologists. He did dodge some of his own medicine, however, and is certainly not a perfect role model in that sense. In any case, one Crowley was enough, the messenger delivered the Message, and on we go with it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 6:45 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Maldoror" wrote:
So are we to take it that if a person acts in a boorish, bullying, selfish fashion it speaks poorly for the medicine they prescribe? Not looking good for Crowley then, is it?

93,

Examples, please. Examples of this behavior, him claiming it is the only way, and him telling people they must believe him or else...

93 93/93

AC was not guilty to this great an extent, really, just enough to force some of his later admirers into the uncomfortable role of apologists. He did dodge some of his own medicine, however, and is certainly not a perfect role model in that sense. In any case, one Crowley was enough, the messenger delivered the Message, and on we go with it.

That's fair enough; if we can't see past a person's short comings I don't know where that leaves us.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 6:54 pm  

Like I said, I think one Crowley was quite enough. Hopefully no one is trying to 'be another Crowley' rather than being themselves and doing to good job at that.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
16/04/2010 7:00 pm  

Michael & I probably started this thread off in this direction. ~~ I have read enough Erwin;& putting him in the same sentence as AC as some do, makes me ill. - Also, I love this site, & never fully realised before how much Ian contributed. That someone with a lesser intellect than him was searching for ways to call him a confectionary item . . for me, that was poorly conceptualised. Erwin insults & underestimates his own audience. I find that contemptible.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
16/04/2010 7:25 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
Michael & I probably started this thread off in this direction. ~~

I don't think we did, actually. As far as I can see, there are a number of chums of Erwin who seem to want to make this thread about Erwin. It's not. Please, like consenting adults, just enthuse amongst yourselves.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/04/2010 7:40 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
It [introspection] is, however, only one of the tools in that set. As you say, in the course of the individual's Work, he or she "should major in what [they] are attracted to," whether it be this tool or one of the others included in the set, and would be very wise, according to Crowley's ideas, 'to minor' in something that would insure balance within them.

Again, you don't seem to have a very good grasp on what's being discussed here. No one is denying that there are other "tools" in the set or that ceremonial magick cannot be an effective tool.

What I've been denying on this thread is that ceremonial magick can be an effective tool without an understanding of what the goal is and what you're supposed to be doing.

I'll note that no on has answered the question of exactly how repeating rituals is supposed to aid you in discovering your will when you don't even have a definition of "will" to begin with and an understanding of what it is that you're trying to do.

And again, Camlion, I'll note that you have not indicated a false conclusion of Erwin's and the evidence that leads you to a different conclusion. It is obvious that you are judging his conclusions on the basis of his attitude, which is not only a serious logical error, but a sign of extreme imbalance in yourself.

Prove me wrong.

Azidonis:

I don't really care about the OP any more, especially as he hasn't dropped in to respond to anything we've said. I didn't answer your question from the perspective of responding to the OP -- I answered it in the context of the scenario you proposed...someone who knows nothing about magick (and, as I admitted I incorrectly read into your words, someone not interested in magick).

Magick is the Science and Art of causing change in conformity with will. Practicing magick successfully -- Crowley's magick, anyway -- necessitates that one discover one's true will. You cannot talk about magick without talking about Thelema, at least in the context I'm interested in. If you're not interested in your true will and if you just want to summon up spirits to cause thunderstorms and curse the cattle, then I'm obviously in the wrong place.

Or, in nicer terms, you took what many people seemed to have viewed as an earnest beginner question and used quotes from Erwin to turn it into a discussion about the HGA.

And I answered that "earnest beginner question" in my first post. I then later thirded a suggestion to read Erwin's works -- after two other people had already recommended it -- and I provided a reason for doing so (so that my post would contain some useful information): that his work is *clear* and that clarity is necessary to the task.

I would like a show of hands from those who had an absolute crystal clear understanding of anything until the K&C, and perhaps even further. Yes, I'm using "crystal clear" in the sense of a clear crystal without any blemishes (lacks of knowledge) in the regimen.

But that's just my point. Why would you *not* want your understanding of the HGA to be crystal clear?

Of course most people start off with a murky understanding of terms like HGA. But wouldn't you ideally *want* that understanding to start off crystal clear? I wish that Erwin's essays were online a decade ago -- it would have saved me a lot of time. As it was, I ended up figuring it out on my own, but that's the whole point of having something as a subject of study, as a subject that people write and read about: so that every generation doesn't have to start from scratch.

Imagine if we never wrote down how to build computers and we just told every generation: figure it out yourself! It's so personal! Go on the journey, and see the finished computer for yourself....

I mean, I really don't follow the position you're advocating. Are you claiming that one should just do rituals over and over until K&C, uh, "happens"? I can't fathom for the life of me what you're advocating here, so you had best spell out your premises and how your conclusions follow from them.

Yes, but how many true beginners start off with any knowledge of the HGA, and even in rigid systems, how long before they actually start practicing those parts of the systems?

My point is that those practices are much more likely to be successful if they start off knowing what an HGA is and how you're supposed to go about achieving it.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/04/2010 7:45 pm  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
Los wrote "For example, it's well within the proper domain of reason for it to be used to decide the truth value of claims about the world. That's been one of its primary functions throughout human history, and it's done an admirable job."

I am picking this as a point and not questioning your greater reasoning, however, has it really!?

Yes, it really has. Witness, for example, the computer that you're reading this message on.

Think again, as each generation seems to find that the supposed good reasoning of their predecessors to be childish nonesence based on further research. Perhaps we shall eventually come full circle and find "it's all in the egg".

Well, certainly we modify our conclusions as we discover more evidence, and that is a sign that we are learning.

The methods of reason and evidence-based inquiry have yielded many practical results and given us a greater insight into the world, enabling us to manipulate the world. If you have a better method of discovering things about the world around us, I'd like to hear it, and I'd also like to hear how you know it is a better method.

EDIT: Typo in my last post: "No one is denying that there are other "tools" in the set or that ceremonial magick cannot be an effective tool."

It should read "or that ceremonial magick can be an effective tool."

That is, I am not denying that ceremonial magick can be an effective tool, but I'm saying that in order for it to be effective, one must have an understanding of what the goal is and how the goal can be achieved.

If you disagree with that claim, please demonstrate otherwise.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 7:46 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
I have read enough Erwin;& putting him in the same sentence as AC as some do, makes me ill.

Yeah, I gagged a bit myself.

"Horemakhet" wrote:
Erwin insults & underestimates his own audience. I find that contemptible.

Pretty much self-defeating for him, as well. Difficult being a compulsive bully and a teacher exemplifying the inner balance implied by Thelema, all at once.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/04/2010 7:49 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
I have read enough Erwin;& putting him in the same sentence as AC as some do, makes me ill.

So surely you can cite a specific false conclusion and evidence that leads you to draw a different one.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/04/2010 7:58 pm  

Incidentally, the posts we're seeing from Camlion and a few others are a nice illustration of the point I was making earlier in the thread: that the fantasy lens through which we interpret the world can lead us to make mistakes.

It's obvious that their evaluation of the conclusions of a writer is colored by their emotional beliefs and not any actual evidence.

The suggestion of the OP, that practicing magick can "muck up your life," also serves as an example of seeing the world through a fantasy lens. The uninitiated person experiences some common life event -- a breakup, being laid off from work, etc -- and interprets it as a "problem" about which he has to worry. He begins to falsely interpret the circumstances as something going "wrong" -- which implies the existence of an ideal "should be" that he gives credence to. He begins building it up in his mind until his impression of it -- and its significance -- is almost entirely out of whack with what reality warrants.

Rather than identifying yourself with the "problem-seeing" self, the goal is to perceive situations for what they are; creating a fantasy matrix whereby you interpret problems as not only real but some kind of magical result of practice is going to mire you deeper in the illusion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 8:03 pm  

Once there was a disciple of a Greek philosopher who was commanded by his Master for three years to give money to everyone who insulted him. When this period of trial was over the Master said to him "Now you can go to Athens and learn Wisdom".

When the disciple was entering Athens he met a certain wise man who sat at the gate insulting everybody who came and went. He also insulted the disciple, who burst out laughing.

"Why do you laugh when I insult you?" asked the wise man.

"Because", said the disciple, "for three years I have been paying for this kind of thing and now you give it to me for nothing!"

"Enter the city", said the wise man, "it is all yours..."

- A story from the Desert Fathers of Scete, 4th Century ["The Art of Happiness" - HH Dalai Lama & Howard C. Cutler, pg 143, (1998), isbn 9780340750155]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 8:09 pm  

well, perhaps some are under the belief that the HGA is a literal Angel that lives in some other dimension the 6th heaven or something, and that this angle is impressed by the rote performance of the ritual, and one the Angel feels enough praise, perhaps the ritual is a postal code to send this angel mind-vibrations than it feeds upon and becomes strong enough to penetrate the veils with his powers of mind, and telepathically communicate with the aspirant, who by doing the ritual tunes into the right channel, to hear the telepathic voice of the angel.
(As far as all the evidence is concerned this is all total bullshit, but perhaps some people believe that if they invest enough emotion in bullshit it becomes real for them, as they obviously deny the existence of an umbrella of reality that in TRUE because it is TRUE in itself, in favor of the absurdity that Truth is a construction of the mind)

Those of us with brains, realize that every thing about that story is false. That the HGA is a material aspect of the brain and the brains interaction with the external environment. That Truth is what it is, and not what we make it to be, that we discover truths by harmonizing our minds to the REALITY that is unchanging beyond our minds. That mind is the operation of the brain which is as much an unchanging reality as and part and parcel of the physical world, which is the one and only world far everyone. That the HGA is discovered by harmonizing the contents of the mind to the interests of the whole-organism-in-it's-environment as opposed to the various parts of the brain each striving against one another to fulfill it's various obsessions that contradict. The HGA is that higher self, that creates the lower selves, the Ego which is mutable and changing but since it is the seat of awareness we are not normally aware that our ego self changes, it is merely a complex of thoughts, emotions, instincts, beliefs and behaviors that are working together contextually for the moment. There is a higher self that designs and choses which Ego to use in which life situation and context. That higher principle than forms the Ego and works to organize the rogue passions is the HGA.

If you do liber Samek a billion times, expecting an actual angel to burst forth from some parallel universe and speak to you, You will be out of luck. That is not what the HGA is. So unless you have some understanding what you are trying to do, to experiences with the Ritual, the repeating of the words and signs until you pass out in exhaustion will NEVER achieve the result. Especially if you are taking the ritual literally. In which case the most you will attain in to make your self delusional and re-enforce your belief in supernatural angels (Or rather to increase your word of mouth and claim that you believe in angels, because you would hate to have wasted so much time in ritual and never seen an angel, so you will tell everyone that you did see an angle, until you start to believe it yourself. Much like Christians do with Christ)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 8:33 pm  
"Los" wrote:
It is obvious that you are judging his conclusions on the basis of his attitude.

I distrust the quality of the milk only because it's obvious that it comes from a bull. The bull's "pretty picture" of itself as a cow and your eager reassurance do not change the facts: Compulsion belies equilibrium. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 8:44 pm  

See again you do not understand than TRUTH is how it is, Hessel did not create the truth, he only conveys it. The product is just as good no matter who sells it to you. If he pours it for you politely and is nice, or if an angry jerk holds your mouth open and forces you to drink. It is the same milk, and if the milk is fresh or sour has nothing to do with presentation


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/04/2010 8:59 pm  

93,

"Los" wrote:
Azidonis:

I don't really care about the OP any more, especially as he hasn't dropped in to respond to anything we've said.

ie. a troll

I didn't answer your question from the perspective of responding to the OP -- I answered it in the context of the scenario you proposed...someone who knows nothing about magick (and, as I admitted I incorrectly read into your words, someone not interested in magick).

Thanks for admitting that you read my words and decided to make up your own disconnected thesis in counter-claim.

Magick is the Science and Art of causing change in conformity with will. Practicing magick successfully -- Crowley's magick, anyway -- necessitates that one discover one's true will. You cannot talk about magick without talking about Thelema, at least in the context I'm interested in. If you're not interested in your true will and if you just want to summon up spirits to cause thunderstorms and curse the cattle, then I'm obviously in the wrong place.

For someone who talks a lot, you sure are missing the point. You don't begin someone in the science of chemistry by expecting him to know the full table of the elements and the molecular structure of each, which is what a comparison to the actual HGA would be.

I then later thirded a suggestion to read Erwin's works -- after two other people had already recommended it -- and I provided a reason for doing so (so that my post would contain some useful information): that his work is *clear* and that clarity is necessary to the task.

I could care less about your mention of Erwin. What I was, and am interested in is the fact that you somehow equated such a basic foundational idea such as H2O to include the entire periodic table. In clearer words, you are telling this 'illusory beginner idea' (ie. the troll) something that is only going to cause even further illusion and confusion. While I do not disagree that the K&C is the main theme of Thelema and verily every other religion or practice in some disguise or another, one does not simply hop into the Vault of the Adepti with little to no previous training, unless that person is indeed extremely special. Why you would even assume such a thing is beyond me.

The original poster asked how to practice Magick without mucking up your life. My second response to that question was an analogy that, if you read it at all said, "In the beginning, the more you know about what it is you are doing, the better equipped you will be to handle what comes at you as a result. Start with something small and simple, and work your way from there." The analogy of H2O was intended to say that.

Where you come in with the HGA talk is fine, with the exception that you don't want a young practitioner, or a practitioner who is worried about his life messing up, to run around chasing many different concepts, the Angel being one of them.

But that's just my point. Why would you *not* want your understanding of the HGA to be crystal clear?

Los, I see your hand raised. While you undoubtedly have gone through aches and pains for your Angel, if/when you actually attained the K&C, did your understanding of the Angel grow or change in any way? If so, then it logically follows that you did not have a completely clear understanding of your Angel. If you ever learn anything new from the processes or formulas even, then your "crystal clear" understanding was not exactly crystal clear, was it?

Of course most people start off with a murky understanding of terms like HGA. But wouldn't you ideally *want* that understanding to start off crystal clear?

I will agree that you want your understanding to be as clear and concise as possible. However, if it was already completely clear, that sort of defeats the purpose of the HGA who's very nature is to make things clear, doesn't it?

You very well cannot claim to be a millionaire just because you know what a million dollars is, and you certainly cannot understand what it is like to be a millionaire until you are. This who business of "I understood my HGA perfectly before I obtained the K&C" is simply downright absurd.

I wish that Erwin's essays were online a decade ago -- it would have saved me a lot of time. As it was, I ended up figuring it out on my own, but that's the whole point of having something as a subject of study, as a subject that people write and read about: so that every generation doesn't have to start from scratch.

I'm glad that you did figure many things out on your own, both for your sake and for the sake of this planet.

Imagine if we never wrote down how to build computers and we just told every generation: figure it out yourself! It's so personal! Go on the journey, and see the finished computer for yourself....

Again you continue on with this. If you have ever learned anything about computers, I'm sure you have learned that you do not know everything about computers. Therefore, your understanding of computers is not exactly "crystal clear" in the quite literal sense which I asked you to prove. Furthermore, if you did not learn what a user interface was, how would you even learn what it takes to create one?

I mean, I really don't follow the position you're advocating. Are you claiming that one should just do rituals over and over until K&C, uh, "happens"?

Please, define Spiritual Experience for me, Los.

I can't fathom for the life of me what you're advocating here, so you had best spell out your premises and how your conclusions follow from them.

I had best... what? Are you attacking me now? LMAO! I had best... or what, are you going to get your pal Erwin to come get me? Ooh, I'm scared. Really man, don't make this into a personal attack. It is completely outside of the Forum Guidelines, as I'm sure any administrator will tell you. And yes, I perceive "you had better" as a personal attack.

For a Thelemite, you sure do a lot of "you had betters" to people. How about this, Los (and Paul I apologize before hand), you had better pull your head out of your own ass and stop mistaking your own confusion for the laws that govern this Universe. Such blatant ignorance and imbecility may cause many problems for you at some point, and not by my hand. Take your friend Erwin as a "crystal clear" example of this (end of apology).

My point is that those practices are much more likely to be successful if they start off knowing what an HGA is and how you're supposed to go about achieving it.

Los, I'm sincerely proud of you for popping out of the womb knowing absolutely every foundational and fundamental thing about Magick in both Theory and Practice - so much so that you were able to dive right in to the Knowledge and Conversation of your Holy Guardian Angel without missing a beat.

Clearly, the original poster is indeed a troll due to his efforts to mainly stir up muck in its own right without giving this thread a more clear purpose by further defining what it is he meant by his original post. Clearly, Los and I will never agree, even on elementary issues, as apparently that is so beyond him that he cannot even hold a decent conversation about it. Maybe he's waiting for Erwin to show up and do it for him.

93 93/93

Edit: Too bad we cannot ignore posters (as in, not even see they have posted), or even keywords like Erwin, key names like Erwin Hessel, or key phrases like the cult of Erwin Hessel, or personal attack phrases like "you had better".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 9:25 pm  
"Los" wrote:
No one is denying that there are other "tools" in the set or that ceremonial magick cannot be an effective tool.

Not true, Los, Hessle denies it, and ridicules it, but I'll leave that for the occultists to sort out with you. They can use the forum search function as well as I can. By the way, in the interest of balance, I'll surely concede that some occultists could use a dose of balance themselves and that some introspective rationalism might be just the thing for them. But balance works both ways, that's why they call it balance. 😉


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
16/04/2010 10:09 pm  

For me: I will never allow a failed Adept to come close to me & my own.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
16/04/2010 10:44 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
No one is denying that there are other "tools" in the set or that ceremonial magick cannot be an effective tool.

Not true, Los, Hessle denies it, and ridicules it,

Hmm, well I'm not sure he denies that ritual and astral work are tools. His main idea seems to be to counter assertions (usually stemming from a perfectly reasonable interpretation of AC's words in MWT) that the magick stuff is real, that there really are discarnate intelligences, etc.

Erwin rightly points out (what I also said in my last post) that generally, AC stuck to the line "it doesn't matter - just do the practices and you will get results". Clearly, for Crowley and many others, the results include the seeming reality of magick stuff.

What Erwin does is "damn with faint praise" - he's not outright dismissing it, for those who are, you know, THAT type of person who enjoys dressing up (and there's that barely-concealed sneer 🙂 ). But to be fair, Erwin (as does Los here) does allow that magick can be a tool.

I'm someone who's more into mysticism than magick - I've tried magick and never gotten anything out of it. The most I've had are vague experiences that are a bit like the sleep paralysis experiences that I'm more familiar with. But mysticism? That's my game! I've had satori experiences, and I know there's "something to" the business - and how! But I don't diss magick, or those who practice it. I'm mindful of AC's comment in Eleusis:-

Better get forty shillings or a month than live and die as lived and died John Bright!
Better be a Shaker, or a camp-meeting homunculus, or a Chataqua girl, or a Keswick week lunatic, or an Evan Roberts revivalist, or even a common maniac, than a smug Evangelical banker's clerk with a greasy wife and three gifted children - to be bank clerks after him!
Better be a flagellant, or one who dances as David danced before the Lord, than a bishop who is universally respected, even by the boys he used to baste when he was headmaster of a great English public school!
That is, if religion is your aim: if you are spiritually minded: if you interpret every phenomenon that is presented to your sensorium as a particular dealing of God with your soul.

Having had no solid experiences from my magickal work, I am at the moment pretty much in a rationalist and materialist intellectual mood, and have been for many years. But I am perfectly willing to accept that people have very strong experiences that seem magickal, that they seem to talk to angels, and all the rest of it. I reserve judgement on what the ultimate status of these entities is, but I accept peoples' honest report of their phenomenology.

In a way, I have a lot of sympathy for (what I take to be) Erwin's point of view. There's a lot of nonsense in this field. One would like to "straighten it all out", in some sense, stop all the nonsense and get on a sound footing with a mass movement that will really work to bring lots of people to realisation.

But I still love the crazies in this movement. I've been crazy myself, and I have a lot of sympathy for people who are a bit wild, a bit outside the norm, a bit crazy, who try risky things out, who have weird theories, etc., etc. In the general ecology and economy, such people are still values.

So I guess you could say I see what Erwin's doing as analogous to a sort of "catholicizing" of Thelema - it's sort of parallel to what the stout, rational Romans did to Christianity. "Get rid of all this prophecy, tongues, and the perennial, infernal production of new gospels! We have all the gospels we need!" The "occult" stuff was gradually outlawed, etc., etc.

IOW, in an attempt to broaden the base of the movement, and to make Christianity more rationalistic, some of the magick (quite literally) was lost.

I'm not saying Erwin's single-handedly capable of doing such a thing, or even that he's an intelligence plant, but he might represent a potential tendency it would be wise to watch out for.

The bottom line is: numbers don't really matter, and if anybody ever thought it were necessary, I lift up my voice and proclaim it is NOT necessary, to gee up numbers by "rationalising", or "streamlining", or "getting rid of the magick stuff" (I'm reminded of the Eastern story about the guy who tried to make his crops grow better by going out at night and tugging each plant up a little bit.) Crowley's system is Crowley's system, warts and all; it belongs to the slightly mad folk too. If you utilise some parts of that system and reject others, you may well be practicing something that's closely related to Crowley's system - and the best of luck to you! - but you ain't practicing Crowley's system.

Although it would be nice if large numbers of people learnt to be true to themselves, quality is ALWAYS more important than quantity, and quality does, I'm afraid, require some kind of solid base in all the practices (for the sake of balance, as you say - Liber Librae holds throughout the career of the adept right up until the Abyss, IIRC).


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
16/04/2010 10:47 pm  
"Los" wrote:
So surely you can cite a specific false conclusion and evidence that leads you to draw a different one.

Jesus Christ! Horemakhet doesn't like Erwin or his work. He or she doesn't need to justify that to you. It's his or her choice; just accept it.

God, you Erweenies . . . whatever are you like?

🙄

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 210
16/04/2010 11:04 pm  

93,

"JohnnyScience" wrote:
How is one able to practice magick without it really mucking up your life?

Regarding the OP, and I don't know if "JohnnyScience" is actually still paying attention to this thread or not, but his statement is interesting. The question posed is really a contradiction as stands. In my view, the position taken should actually be quite the opposite. What he should really be asking is something like this, "How can I become more efficient at Magick so that my life would not be so mucked up?" or something to that effect. I would recommend reading A.C.'s introduction to Magick in Theory and Practice, part 3 for his extensive discussion of and definition of Magick. "Magick is the Science of understanding oneself and one's conditions. It is the Art of applying that understanding in action." etc.

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 11:20 pm  

The problem with "Crowley's system" is than Crowley does not have a single system, sometimes Crowley wrote about his experiences what they seemed like to him, sometimes he tried to explain them using his knowledge of Freudian psychology, some times he spoke in terms of physics, some times in terms of biology and brain science, some times as an animist some times as a theist other times as a Buddhist, at other times he was a fatalist and others he spoke of free will. Some times he was literal other times he was metaphorical, some time he spoke plain other times he spoke in verse.

it fact Crowley was so broad studied and the different perspectives of his age were so diverse an unsettled that I do not believe he ever settled the issue of metaphysics himself, thus was his advice about not questioning the hows and wherefores and just do the works. The metaphysics and philosophy he employed changed depending on who's book he had most recently been impressed by. Works like the soldier and the hunchback show his interest in trying to hold these seemingly incompatible views at the same time, to find a transcendent truth that is beyond rational expression which includes all possible variation. (The achievement of this ends marks the attainment of the Magister Templi, while the various forms all fight and oppose and confuse the magician, this is the fight with Choronzon in the abyss).

Crowley never settled on a single explanation, he tried to match hes explanation to the student, which is why his account of the HGA differs in his instructions in MWT from his earlier writings. Not only does his "system" differ from student to student and from which ever books are on his mind at the time, the foundation of each of his orders, A.'.A.'. and O.T.O. are different, also presumably the lesson of each initiation in a total change and possibly reversal of ones previously held beliefs.

The Society of Thelemites, which Crowley had proposed when he feared he might lose control over the OTO, would have been set up as a purely materialist order, concerned with things like industry, banking, farming, food distribution, school teaching, and political policy. With no mention of anything occult, Kabbalah, strange God's etc, it was to be a pure practical application of the law of Thelema to solve the problems of Labor, Ethics, and Economics.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2010 11:25 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
So surely you can cite a specific false conclusion and evidence that leads you to draw a different one.

Jesus Christ! Horemakhet doesn't like Erwin or his work. He or she doesn't need to justify that to you. It's his or her choice; just accept it.

God, you Erweenies . . . whatever are you like?

🙄

Best wishes,

Michael.

Erweenie? lol. You'll have to include yourself then Michael. The Erwin haters appear to have the same obsessive quality as the Friends of Erwin. Different sides of the same coin. Bleh.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
17/04/2010 12:18 am  
"alrah" wrote:
Erweenie? lol. You'll have to include yourself then Michael. The Erwin haters appear to have the same obsessive quality as the Friends of Erwin. Different sides of the same coin. Bleh.

I'm not an Erwin hater; on the contrary, in my opinion there is much to admire about him: his articulacy, for instance, his range of intellect. Admittedly, I don't particularly care for the cut of his jib. What I do object to, though, is having him rammed down my throat - as the actress said to the bishop - by his goddam fan club.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 12:27 am  

That seems to be my main problem, it isn't Erwins views that I have a problem with, they make sense to a degree but they just aren't everyone. Hence it becomes a problem when someone sees otherwise and has to have it rammed in their face how they are wrong wrong wrong.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
17/04/2010 12:38 am  

Erweenie? lol. Friends of Erwin. Bleh.

. . I like that; it has style: 'Erwin & the Erweenies'. -& if anyone does not like the concept, there is a rope & a bag of nails in the back of the car to get them in the mood. . .


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
17/04/2010 12:50 am  

It also seems to be my problem, Erwin has interesting views to share, they make sense to a degree, but his views are certainly not the views of everyone, and his views aren't everything, that's my admission.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 1:04 am  

Views are either correct or incorrect.
If you don't like his view, show with evidence that it is false.
If it is not in agreement with your opinion, the tough. Whoever told you to have an opinion anyway
We want FACTS not opinions, you have no RIGHT to hold as true what is not TRUE. Thus no You do not have the right to hold Opinions, you have only a duty to make sure that you know facts and not illusions.

If Erwin makes a statement, you can't say he is wrong because you disagree, he is not wrong because he was mean to you. He is wrong if and ONLY IF you can show that what he said is not actually the case. That is irregardless of what views you or he hold or anyone holds. TRUTH IS TRUTH it is not a matter of personal opinion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 1:10 am  

To drive this point further.

Not one person here has taken any specific statement that Erwin made, and refuted it with any kind of evidence.
Instead you make generalizations about ERWIN or ERWINISM and express your emotional reactions to this. If you want to refute Erwin, you can't. You may make a refutation against something specific than he said, and you can't just say, I don't like it, or it's mean, or I don't believe him.

You can show evidence from nature, ie from observation, from science that is from your own journal of a repeatable experiment, and you could even refute him on some issues by showing that Crowley specifically indicates the opposite of what he claims Crowley means.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 1:12 am  

That's such a black and white way to look at it. Views can be objective or subjective. We're not sociopaths and views can be based just as much upon emotion/experience as they can about what you may define as fact. Another man's truth is not necessarily the same for another man. Liking someone or what they have to say doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the "truths" they speak. You might just not like them! A person doesn't need a justification for that.

I'm not talking about Erwin specifically because I've only read so much of what he's written. This is about you saying that a person has to justify why they don't like someone.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 1:22 am  

I do not care what anyone likes or does not like nor does the Universe, what you like does not effect truth.

The adept magician no longer Likes or Dislikes anything, his emotional attractions and repulsions do not interfere with his perceptions nor with his WILL. He truly makes no difference between anything and any other thing. A kiss and a slap in the face are equal to the advanced practitioner, an orgasm and the last sigh of the death gasp are equal to him.

"Composite things are like dreams. Fantasies. Bubbles. Thoughts. Like a dewdrop and a flash of lightning. A new dress and a burning tire. Waves of sand and sinking ships. The shadow of a statue, and an entry in a diary. A brain tumor and an ice cream sundae. They are thus to be regarded." (Aeon Flux)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 1:47 am  

What a perfect series of examples to illustrate my point.

I rest my case.

8=3 my eye.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
17/04/2010 2:38 am  

To return to the original question, if you are interested in "Magick" but feel there is the potential to "muck up your life," this speaks to an attraction and repulsion which, I think, are valid and should be considered.

There is a longing within many of us for something beyond our present reach, something we could call "transcendental." We want to be MORE than what see ourselves as. Magic suggests an energetic and willed endeavor to engage with potentials pointing in this direction. But then we look at people involved in this "scene" and see loads of train-wrecks. I think Crowley's track record of dealing with people often found them in this category. Getting involved with Crowley seemed to "muck up" a lot of people's lives. Not always but certainly enough to be wary.

I've been driven by my own deep desire for the "transcendental" for many years-and I can say truthfully that it is an impulse close to my heart, close to my Will. Despite this, I've also found many elements in "Magick" to be inimical to that same Will. But I should clarify:

People have disillusioned me with their artifice. My ego and mental tendencies have deceived me and led me off course. Organizations in which I put my idealistic faith have proven to be more "political" than "spiritual." It seems that the stuff that "mucks up our lives" in ANY context is the same stuff that infiltrates and invades our pursuit of the Transcendent. We can walk away feeling bitter and broken, blaming "Magick," when, in reality, there are other culprits slithering all around.

Crowley (whose posthumous teachings really ARE much more beneficial than some of his human engagements) offers many pithy words of caution and wisdom to the careful reader. "Magick" need not be "Crowleyan" or "Thelemic" per se. But if one is attracted to this route, I would recommend reading Lon Milo DuQuette. Get his primer on the Magic of Thelema and start it up. I have read Lon's work for years and really think he takes the voluminous work of AC and simplifies it, makes it accessible and demonstrates how it can be applied to the average human life in a way that is positive and transformative. I would say that, with Lon as a "guide," we find Crowley's "Magick" directed to "de-mucking" our lives. Which is what I think the "Bodhisattva Crowley" would have wanted to see.

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
17/04/2010 2:41 am  

Erwin has interesting views to share, they make sense to a degree, but his views are certainly not the views of everyone, and his views aren't everything

Cheers, Alysa, from a guy who has argued and bantered with Mr. Hessle and still enjoys visiting his website and reading what he has to say,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 4:17 am  

Ugh. So it looks like I put my foot in my mouth. I am fairly new to these parts and didn't realize that mentioning Erwin's works would incite such an uproar. I only did so because his work gave me a much needed kick in the arse that probably got me out of trouble.

So, to get back to JohnnyScience's question, I'll try again:

If we want to claim that you can 'muck up your life', I'll assume that it means that you might get yourself into a position in which you are no longer functional in the real world. I'm not sure if practicing magick can really bring you to this point, but without direction, it can certainly add layers of delusion to your life when you would expect it to do the opposite.

The way to not 'muck up your life' is to head towards 'knowledge and conversation with the holy guardian angel'. That should be your only goal.

I hope that is a helpful nudge.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 4:58 am  

Response to the original poster: Good question. Here's my thought on it at this moment.

One cannot "muck up one's life", because, according to One Point Of View, you do not have a life. You ARE life. It's probably tasteless for me to quote from the Book of the Law at this point, but stuff it, here it is:

"I am life, and the giver of life". AL II.6

One can't talk about anything except memories, fantasies, or the reality of the present moment. That's all "my life" really is, a sort of narrative made by the ego of these components, two of which are subjective. The only "real" part of that is the experience of the present moment. Whether or not that moment is "mucked up" depends only upon how you are situated in relation to it, and how much opposition your ego poses to it.

As has been well said by others above, one effect of magic (with or without the k) is to 'stir the pot' or shake the box in some degree - and it must, but presumably one only does magic in order to change something. How one manages the change, experiences it and learns from it, determines its value to you.

But, as has also been noted, change is inevitable. Something will happen anyway. So Magick (imho, based on Crowley and much more) is simply introducing the flame of consciousness into the inexorable equation of inevitable change, the creative, novelty-conserving, awareness-enhancing, growth-oriented impulse out of which arises Life and sentience.

The fear of change, and the fear of "mucking up your life" is an automatic self-preservation response of the ego based on what it thinks "my life should be". But the ego is doomed anyway, because everything that makes it up is not-Self. What is Self, is lived, or is Life, whatever that happens to be.

I have known many people who have "mucked up their lives" through the exact opposite of doing magick - through gratuitous unconsciousness, through fear, through clinging to and identifying with ego-constructs, through forfeiting both the privilege and the burden of consciousness, of which magick is the crown.

My tuppence ha'penny worth.

"Fear not at all." AL II.17


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 5
Share: