Is there any such t...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Is there any such thing as objective Magick  


 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Is there any such thing as objective Magick, or are all Magickal results relegated to the realms of Psycho subjectivity and debatable coincidence.
I am talking here of the Harry Potter type of magic, read spell from book, effect occurs.
Crowley makes a point of stressing the “method of science“.
But does this method only relate to personal subjective experience, the transference of belief to another, who upon acceptance, merely succumbs the will of the Magickian.
Does Crowley’s Magick contain any verifiable objective results, beyond the personal psychosomatic, which through scientific method, can be repeated and certified by cold scientific investigation.
Are there any examples of, If one presses button A effect B is always the result.
Why ask such a naïve question?
Well in many years of personal dedicated experimentation to various forms of magical and mystical method I never found any such scientifically verifiable result.
Of course one might argue that it just does not work like that.
“One really has to unconsciously desire the result” for it to manifest.
As with Spares ideas which amount to tricking the conscious mind.
Or possibly I was never meant to be a “Magickian”
I do not have the “gift” so to speak.
I perform a ritual to attain money and I get nothing.
I followed the recipe for the cake but get not even a stodgy mess, not even a badly made cake that friends are willing to smilingly suffer a take home slice of, which they immediately eject from the car window just after they leave the party.
Can it be argued then that it was some lack of ability or personal conviction on my part that the money did not manifest, even in some impossibly strange way I.e. my rich uncle dies 3 years later and I believe in my ritual to the extent that I am prepared to except the supernatural time lag.
But can this really be called scientific method at all.
Ok I am labouring the scientific method angle of Crowley’s catch phrase I know.
But really, are there abominable texts that if simply read out loud will open the gates of hell regardless of the readers position in the magical hierarchy.
If there are no such “spells” then modern magic has moved the goal posts, not just a little, but of the pitch.
Is modern magick simply a psychological game of self deception and belief transference.
It strikes me that the potential for self delusion in Magick is so enormous as to make it meaningless in any sense of what might be called Scientific method, and I speak as one who has gladly deceived myself many times in the past in the pursuit of my beliefs.
Does anyone know of a ritual or “spell” that to manifest its result does not require a lifetimes dedication of the performer to practices that are designed to modify the belief structure to accommodate the eventual absurdity of the result. Or the sacrifice of honest disbelief in favour of contrived arguments as to why the result did not just happen . A result that is infinitely repeatable manifesting always the same result.
Do I have to “believe” either consciously or unconsciously for the result to occur.
Does Magick exist without the intervention of the mind in some way, as an objective reality.


Quote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5564
 
"Baal" wrote:
Is there any such thing as objective Magick, or are all Magickal results relegated to the realms of Psycho subjectivity and debatable coincidence.

The only way a "result" can be debated as a "coincidence" is when the magician talks about said "result," violating the rule of the fourth power of the Sphinx.

Of course, there's always keeping silence, but then engaging in a personal, internal debate. But even then, silence means internal silence as well as simply not talking about it to others.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Crowley addresses many of the points you make in 'De Arte Magica', I may quote some.

"Baal" wrote:
I am talking here of the Harry Potter type of magic, read spell from book, effect occurs.

It will be impossible or very difficult to move infantry from one wing of the engaged line to the other, but in the Quarters of the Staff it is indifferent whether that body, being at the base, is pushed forward to either. One cannot easily oxidize gold precipated from the chloride, but having the chloride, it is easy to prepare the oxide rather than the metal.

And in all these matters reason must be the guide, and experience the teacher, so that the adept seek not to perform things impossible in Nature, and so blaspheme the Sacrament and bring it to comtempt.

Yet let this be said, that to the consumate and sublime Initiate it may seem that of Himself was it written: "With God all things are possible." However, God Himself is not found to interfere arbitrarily with the course of Nature, but to work within His laws.

Are there any examples of, If one presses button A effect B is always the result.

I perform a ritual to attain money and I get nothing. 

More plainly, if X be the Object __of the Work, the__result is sometimes X, sometimes x x x x, sometimes /(x), sometimes -/(x), or -x x x x, or -X. In the concrete,  suppose that one worketh this Art to obtain a great sum. Then at one time that sum will arrive that same night or within (say) 48 hours after, or an event occur involving the gain of that sum; at another time there will merely arise a group of circumstances favourable; at another time again a lesser sum will arrive; but also these may be reversed, in the worst case the loss of the sum proposed or the occurance of an event which might involve that loss, or at least disappoint some reasonable expectation of that gain.

Does anyone know of a ritual or “spell” that to manifest its result does not require a lifetimes dedication of the performer to practices that are designed to modify the belief structure to accommodate the eventual absurdity of the result

Quantity is as important as the Quality, just as in working with electricity amperage is as important as voltage.

I will not start a dialogue to argue about the method, metaphysics or even reality behind 'objective' or 'subjective' magick. There are plenty of active threads on Lashtal already that more or less touch the same matters at hand.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 316
 
"Baal" wrote:
Is there any such thing as objective Magick, or are all Magickal results relegated to the realms of Psycho subjectivity and debatable coincidence.
I am talking here of the Harry Potter type of magic, read spell from book, effect occurs.

Your variations in spelling here are very telling (Freudian slip? Intentional?) The Harry Potter type of magic, often referred to as phantasy or folk magic, is precisely the type of belief that Crowley wanted to distance himself from by adding the "k" onto the end of the word. Is there such a thing? I can neither confirm nor deny. I've not personally experienced it in a way that couldn't later be explained by prestidigitation. It is, however, outside the purview of what Crowley meant by the term and by his studies.

"Baal" wrote:
Crowley makes a point of stressing the “method of science“. But does this method only relate to personal subjective experience, the transference of belief to another, who upon acceptance, merely succumbs the will of the Magickian.

Depends on what you understand by the term "subjective experience".

"Baal" wrote:
Does Crowley’s Magick contain any verifiable objective results, beyond the personal psychosomatic, which through scientific method, can be repeated and certified by cold scientific investigation.

Do the work. Find out. Recognise that some of that work requires willed belief.

"Baal" wrote:
Are there any examples of, If one presses button A effect B is always the result.

If I press the first speed dial button on my mobile, I am able (9 times out of 10) to instantaneously speak to my mother who lives on the other side of the planet. I don't really know how that works, just that it does. That seems pretty damn magical to me. And repeatable. There are some high-level electro-wizards who do understand how it works and can speak the language of cellular signal response. Some of them run schools of magic where they teach their arcana to a new generation of electro-wizards, fitted by birth and will to attain to electro-wizardry themselves. From some of these mystery schools, we have heard reports of invisibility cloaks, shoes of levitation, and magical glasses of universal wisdom.

"Baal" wrote:
Or possibly I was never meant to be a “Magickian”

This presupposes that there is a planned destiny for you. Is this something that you believe? Or is this perhaps your ego creating an easy out so that you don't have to get down to the hard work of breaking its control over what and who you think you actually are?

"Baal" wrote:
But really, are there abominable texts that if simply read out loud will open the gates of hell regardless of the readers position in the magical hierarchy.

I haven't found any. Then again, my understanding of "hell" doesn't really allow it to fit within the meaning of this sentence.

"Baal" wrote:
If there are no such “spells” then modern magic has moved the goal posts, not just a little, but of the pitch.

One of the clearest announcements in Liber Legis (to my ears anyway) is: "Spelling is defunct". I don't see this as a problem with "modern magic", as you call it; rather as a perpetuation of the ignorance that surrounded medieval folk magic. Consider the history of gunpowder as a simple example. Invented in China in the 9th century, it isn't recorded in European accounts until the 13th. That allows for nearly 400 years of stories told along the Silk Road of explosive dust that can cause death at a distance. With no Europeans actually in China to bring back confirmation until Marco Polo, the folk tales of the magical fairies of the east and their wands of death would have grown in the telling, first among the merchants on the western half of the route, and ultimately among the unlettered masses of Europe. Once Francis Bacon got some of the stuff in hand and uncovered the mystery, the "magic" was dispelled (at least amongst the educated few who were able to read his account) and replaced by simple chemistry. This in no way diminished the death-stick's power to kill at a distance.

"Baal" wrote:
Is modern magick simply a psychological game of self deception and belief transference.
It strikes me that the potential for self delusion in Magick is so enormous as to make it meaningless in any sense of what might be called Scientific method, and I speak as one who has gladly deceived myself many times in the past in the pursuit of my beliefs.

There is a great deal of magick that is psychology. Up until the advances of Freud and Jung, the science of mind was almost entirely within the purview of the magician (think Anton Mesmer for an obvious correlation). Apply this statement to the gunpowder analogy and see if you can find a more useful way of framing this for yourself.

"Baal" wrote:
Does anyone know of a ritual or “spell” that to manifest its result does not require a lifetimes dedication of the performer to practices that are designed to modify the belief structure to accommodate the eventual absurdity of the result. Or the sacrifice of honest disbelief in favour of contrived arguments as to why the result did not just happen . A result that is infinitely repeatable manifesting always the same result.
Do I have to “believe” either consciously or unconsciously for the result to occur.
Does Magick exist without the intervention of the mind in some way, as an objective reality.

Your mind is an objective part of yourself as well as an objective part of the universe. Thinking it otherwise might be what's causing you difficulties here.


ReplyQuote
James
(@james)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 251
 

I was always rather fond of Spare's definition of magic as the art of acquiring without asking.

'Objectively' houses a belief in reality. Science, which deals with the objective, seems to me to be a yardstick for what is capable of being termed 'real' for us at this time.

I sort of assumed that Crowley's 'method of science' was an attempt to create a belief in the reality of Will and Imagination - the realms where magic is performed.

Of course, by imagination I include both dreaming whilst asleep and awake. My imagination is working right now as I am listening to the sea right now and considering its mood.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3396
 

What is this "objective reality" that folks around here keep talking about?
Many of the "skeptics" who like to tell us AC did not believe in the objective reality of "spacemen" and "goblins" often invoke the signifier "Science" in support of their claims (as, of course, did AC before them, in the famous "virgin or pigeon" formulation).
Science however does not purport to describe "objective reality", or to tell us what is true, but rather reports on results of mathematical models of recorded measurement data, in order to falsify a null hypothesis that there is no effect being measured.
The "skeptics" tell us their subjective lifetime experience of remembered sensory data, including their remembered experience of reading the works of entities posited as "real" such as "The Amazing Randi" (although in many cases their recollection of past sensory data includes no direct interaction with this entity), are dispositive as to whether other persons might be non-cretinous in reaching different hypotheses than they.
They claim this, despite those sensory data being products of what seem to be very imperfect instruments that depend on interpolation between measurements in the case of vision, eg; that memory is fallible is too trite a proposition to demand evidence.
They also tell us that what "Science" tells us about "objective reality" proves they are right, indicating they may understand "the method of science" no better than "the aim of religion" or AC's work on "scientific illuminism" and/or Thelema.


ReplyQuote
James
(@james)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 251
 

I suspect that scientists do claim to describe an objective reality.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3396
 

I earn my living as a senior research scientist and can assure you that you are mistaken, and that I have exactly described the "method of science" in my third sentence, at least the kind publishable in any peer-reviewed journal with any claim to rigor.
See Thomas Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions, or the work of Karl Popper; I'm sure wikipedia will enable any "skeptics" to verify that i am correct.


ReplyQuote
James
(@james)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 251
 

I have read Kuhn and do. It dispute your description of scientific method. What surprises me is that scientists do not assume an objective world as the focus of investigation?

Are you really stating this is the general belief among scientists?


ReplyQuote
James
(@james)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 251
 

Apologies my second sentence should read that I do not dispute your description of the scientific method.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"ignant666" wrote:
What is this "objective reality" that folks around here keep talking about?
Many of the "skeptics" who like to tell us AC did not believe in the objective reality of "spacemen" and "goblins" often invoke the signifier "Science" in support of their claims

Just to clarify that sceptics do not really always evoke science as back-up.  Science is only a subset of practical evidence based enquiry.  Huxley (not Aldous but his uncle) called science, "organized common sense."  What has happened is that metaphysicians have tried to condemn scepticism by evoking the notion that all knowledge is a mere transient scientific model hence attempting to dispute the machinations of sceptical common sense but that is nonsense as indicated earlier.  I saw the Moon in the sky earlier and I'm pretty sure it will still be visible if there are no clouds in the way.  I don't need to consult the collected works of Karl Popper or use thousands of log books, tables, theories and models to "believe" that. 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3396
 

To reply to James' question, certainly most scientists who do not spend time on places like this (ie almost all my colleagues) probably, in talking to lay people, would describe their work as describing objective reality or at least trying to, but would readily concede that my description of what they in fact do in their work is exactly correct.
Clearly there would be little point in doing science if we did not accept that phenomena exhibit enough consistency to be measurable across time.
We, like Plato's cave dwellers, interact with that posited "reality" at several removes: the limitations of of our instruments, and models, and the fundamental impossibility of the scientific method "proving" things. It can't and doesn't seek to.
david: If you were truly a "skeptic", you would not be nearly so sure of so many things: doubt is inherent in skepticism. whereas you find certainty there.
I stop believing i have five fingers after i finish counting them


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

I don’t think the OP was asking for a discussion about abstruse philosophical ideas regarding the ultimate existence of some “objective” reality. I think he was asking the rather straightforward question of whether magick actually causes results in the everyday world that we experience, the world that we commonly call reality (whatever the “ultimate nature” of that reality might or might not be).

The fact of the matter is that our senses reveal to us a world that appears to operate by consistent rules and that appears to operate independently of our beliefs, desires, and thoughts about that world.

Whether that world is “ultimately real” or “objectively real” is irrelevant to the practical question of whether magick has detectable results on that world. Magick appears not to have detectable effects, no more than the prayers of other religious types or the positive visualizations of proponents of “The Secret.”


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"david" wrote:
Just to clarify that sceptics do not really always evoke science as back-up.  Science is only a subset of practical evidence based enquiry.

Correct. Skeptics – that is, people who doubt outlandish ideas (such as, for example, the idea that magical rituals can do things like heal people) –generally don’t appeal to “science” as their justification for their doubt. They appeal to the fact that nobody appears to have any good reason to think that such outlandish ideas are correct.

Further, skeptics generally don’t claim positions of certainty. For example, nothing contained in david's post (nor in mine) implies that we are absolutely certain about anything -- we just haven't been presented with evidence that supports outlandish claims about magick. In fact, I don’t know a single skeptic who would claim that he knows for absolutely certain that there are no gods or that he knows for absolutely certain that magical powers aren’t real.

The skeptics I know would say that those outlandish claims (about gods and magical powers) haven’t been demonstrated to be true and that therefore nobody has any reason to think they’re true. If someone does manage to demonstrate those claims, then any reasonable skeptic would change his mind and accept those claims.

Some people  – especially people whose desperation for my attention is bordering on pathetic – ought to take note.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

I am not in any way changed in my views of Crowley’s body of work by the fact, that to me, there do not seem to be any presidential big red buttons in the Magickal world, that when pressed, automatically condemn the whole of existence to none existence. Or either simple acts that when performed result always without exception the desired result.
I merely wish to establish the fact that there do not seem to be any such things.
If I wish to kill someone I will therefore use much more reliable methods, a knife in the back for instance, than an elaborate spell, that may or may not, depend upon a hundred other factors.
I note here how all great nations throughout, history have ultimately taken their destiny into their own hands having grown tired of waiting for whatever ultimate great power, God, they may believe in, to achieve their desired state.
But is this simple question so silly as it sounds. And does the answer always have to come dressed in superior tones that speak of some promised fulfilment for those who are willing to sacrifice much of their life in order to find the simple answer. No


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3396
 

The "skeptical" advocates of "common sense" seem oblivious to the fact that in urging "skepticism", AC above all hoped to dislodge the faith in "common sense" heuristics about a posited "objective reality" that they argue is the essence of his work , by pointing out that by the diligent application of certain techniques, anyone can easily have the experience of communion with gods, demons, and so on, one that appears subjectively just as real as the experience of eating breakfast.
That the "earnest warning" passage in MITP  that most directly states this proposition is the favorite touchstone of the pseudo-skeptics makes their obliviousness to, or willful failure to see, this all the more remarkable.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Baal" wrote:
I merely wish to establish the fact that there do not seem to be any such things.

You're correct. There don't seem to be any such things.

But is this simple question so silly as it sounds.

It's "silly" only to the extent that lots of people have already figured out that magical powers don't seem to exist, so these people would regard a serious question about magical powers as being very silly indeed.

And does the answer always have to come dressed in superior tones that speak of some promised fulfilment for those who are willing to sacrifice much of their life in order to find the simple answer.

Well, I just gave you an answer that doesn't promise you fulfillment if you're willing to sacrifice much.

I know that there are people who will tell you things like, "You're not capable of judging the results of magick unless you've 'done the work,' which I'm arbitrarily defining as X number of years doing practices Y, Z, and Q." But such claims just beg the question by assuming from the outset that magick has results of the kind we've been speaking about. Magick does not appear to have such results.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"ignant666" wrote:
by the diligent application of certain techniques, anyone can easily have the experience of communion with gods, demons, and so on, one that appears subjectively just as real as the experience of eating breakfast.

Yes, summoning a demon and sending that demon to bring a message to your friend across the country can appear to be just as real subjectively as writing a postcard to your friend and dropping it in the mailbox.

But guess which one of those methods actually does communicate information to another person.

That's the part of the discussion you're not following. The OP's question is about whether magick has effects on the world in this sort of manner, not whether someone can hypnotize himself into having a very vivid daydream. Whether the world we experience is "objectively/ultimately real" or "illusion" is beside the point: we *do* interact with a world revealed to us by our senses, and certain actions (sending a postcard) appear to have results in that world (communicating a message to something that appears to be another thinking being) while certain other actions (sending a demon-gram) appear not to have results in that world (i.e. demon-grams do not appear to communicate messages).

Your answers have been addressing an entirely different scope than that of the question that's actually been asked.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 
"Baal" wrote:
I am not in any way changed in my views of Crowley’s body of work by the fact, that to me, there do not seem to be any presidential big red buttons in the Magickal world, that when pressed, automatically condemn the whole of existence to none existence. Or either simple acts that when performed result always without exception the desired result.

Where in Crowley's work is it maintained that the means exist to "automatically condemn the whole of existence to non-existence"? So far as "always without exception the desired result" is concerned, again where does Crowley suggest this?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Where in Crowley's work is it maintained that the means exist to "automatically condemn the whole of existence to non-existence"?

Didn't A.C. suggest in Confessions that Allan Bennett's constant, seemingly never-ending repetition of the mantra "Shiva, Shiva, Shiva..." would cause said deity to open up his third Eye and bring about the attendant result of the annihilation of existence?

(I think the 'sceptics' will love that one!! 😀 )

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

If you want the best example on the internet (imo) between a scientifically inclined  person (apparently an occult practitioner)trying to shoot holes into scepticism (in this case Los) then go to this blog excerpt called "In between brain and mouth...there was no interlocutor" at  http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.co.uk/2014_07_01_archive.html

The guy's name/handle is "Gnosamai" and he is a very sharp and articulate guy who seems very informed about "scientific method" and Thelema.....well.........scientific method anyway.   


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3396
 

The sort of Newtonian "common sense" view our learned colleagues who advocate "skepticism" advocate was in perilous shape in science when AC was a young man, as he still was at 32 when, shortly after the destruction of the world by fire in 1904, Einstein finally put the stake in hoary notions of "objective reality".
Whether we will ever acquire empirical evidence of what someone (obviously an abject superstitionist) once dubbed "spooky action at a distance" of the sort some say is impossible remains uncertain.
Until then, true skeptics await that evidence. Others, obedient perhaps to the "true preferences" of the brain (posited by current neuroscience as being largely a function of the amygdala, at least insofar as these "true preferences" have been described in these forums), do otherwise, as may be appropriate or a function of will for such persons.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3396
 

Much of the existing literature on whether the things the OP asks about are "objectively" possible discusses, either explicitly, or implicitly,  the paramount necessity that one who has done such things exercise the fourth power of the Sphinx, lest his "eye be shut"- this is why such things are called "occult" (hidden), or "esoteric" (requiring highly specialized knowledge or experience).
In African American Vernacular English (the language from which my forum "handle" is derived), this power of the Sphinx is expressed as "Them as know ain't say; them as say ain't know."


ReplyQuote
gnosomai
(@gnosomai-emauton)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 29
 
"david" wrote:
If you want the best example on the internet (imo) between a scientifically inclined  person (apparently an occult practitioner)trying to shoot holes into scepticism (in this case Los) then go to this blog excerpt called "In between brain and mouth...there was no interlocutor" at  http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.co.uk/2014_07_01_archive.html

The guy's name/handle is "Gnosamai" and he is a very sharp and articulate guy who seems very informed about "scientific method" and Thelema.....well.........scientific method anyway.   

david/kasper... that's so kind of you....well........kind-ish anyway. I've missed the two of you over at the Fruitcake Factory. Nice to see you've found a new sandbox.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Gnosomai Emauton" wrote:
"david" wrote:
If you want the best example on the internet (imo) between a scientifically inclined  person (apparently an occult practitioner)trying to shoot holes into scepticism (in this case Los) then go to this blog excerpt called "In between brain and mouth...there was no interlocutor" at  http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.co.uk/2014_07_01_archive.html

The guy's name/handle is "Gnosamai" and he is a very sharp and articulate guy who seems very informed about "scientific method" and Thelema.....well.........scientific method anyway.   

david/kasper... that's so kind of you....well........kind-ish anyway. I've missed the two of you over at the Fruitcake Factory. Nice to see you've found a new sandbox.

Thanks.....err...I think  🙂


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 

kasper, eh? Interesting.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
kasper, eh? Interesting.

Glad to have fed you with an endorphine hit Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

My comment about Crowley’s work was simply to say that I do not doubt his immensity as a true dreamer, a dreamer of the day as in “All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake up in the day to find it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”  One of the greatest quotes to my mind of the way in which great men influence the minds of others in extraordinary ways, regardless of the truth or value of what they say. I admire him greatly for this. And enjoy immersing myself in his creation, and most likely always will. I just try to extract the sublime creativity from the hard reality. As many seem incapable of doing. Or maybe I am wrong and there is a hard reality to it, like light switches. 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Baal" wrote:
I do not doubt [Crowley's] immensity as a true dreamer, a dreamer of the day […] great men influence the minds of others in extraordinary ways, regardless of the truth or value of what they say […] I just try to extract the sublime creativity from the hard reality

No argument on these points. Creativity and art are powerful forms of magick: a skilled writer can do a better job influencing the world with a pen than a thousand would-be wizards could do with wands.

One of my favorite letters in Magick without Tears is LXXI, where Crowley scolds his correspondent for a number of faults, chief among them her confusion of spirituality with middle-class morality. True spirituality, according to Crowley in this passage, consists of fulfilling one’s nature – in this case, acting as an Artist. His correspondent has gone wrong by setting up a bunch of “spiritual” beliefs as obstacles to her authentic self-expression:

"Crowley" wrote:
Do please forget all these vague statements about the "clarification of one's dream-life" (meaning what?) and "shadow-thinking" (meaning what?)  These speculations are idle, and idleness is poison.  In your very next paragraph you give the whole show away!  "Artistically it appeals to me—but not spiritually." You have been spiritually poisoned. [Emphasis in original]

What blasphemy more hideous could be penned?  What lie so base, so false, so nasty, what so devilish and deadly a doctrine?  I feel contaminated by the mere fact of being in a world where such filth is possible to conceive.  I am all but in tears to think of my beloved sister tortured by so foul a denizen of the Abyss.  Cannot you see in this the root of all your toadstool spawn of miseries, of doubts, of fears, of indecisions?

As an Artist you are a consecrated Virgin Priestess, the Oracle of the Most High.  None has the right to approach you save with the most blessed awe, with arms outstretched as to invoke your benediction.  By "spiritually" you mean no more than "according to the lower and middle-middle-class morality of the Anglo-Saxon of the period when Longfellow and Tennyson were supposed to be poets, and Royal Academicians painters."

There is a highly popular school of "occultists" which is 99 % an escape-mechanism.  The fear of death is one of the bogeys; but far deeper is the root-fear—fear of being alone, of being oneself, of life itself.  With this there goes the sense of guilt.

The Book of the Law cuts directly at the root of all this calamitous, this infamous tissue of falsehood.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
One of my favorite letters in Magick without Tears is LXXI, where Crowley scolds his correspondent for a number of faults, chief among them her confusion of spirituality with middle-class morality.

What do you understand by that term "middle-class morality"?  Does it differ from proletarian or aristocratic morality?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"david" wrote:
What do you understand by that term "middle-class morality"?  Does it differ from proletarian or aristocratic morality?

I take Crowley to be referring to what are often regarded as prudish, conservative values often adopted by the bourgeois, both to distinguish themselves from the lower classes (and to think of themselves as superior or more refined than those lower classes) and to aspire to what they imagine are the "sophisticated" upper classes.

For more on this subject, I direct you to Chapter 60 of The Book of Lies, "The Wound of Amfortas"

"Crowley" wrote:
The Self-mastery of Percivale became the Self-masturbatery of the Bourgeois.

Vir-tus has become "virtue".

The qualities which have made a man, a race, a city, a caste, must be thrown off; death is the penalty of failure. As it is written: In the hour of success sacrifice that which is dearest to thee unto the Infernal Gods!

The Englishman lives upon the excrement of his forefathers.

All moral codes are worthless in themselves; yet in every new code there is hope. Provided always that the code is not changed because it is too hard, but because it is fulfilled.

The dead dog floats with the stream; in puritan France the best women are harlots; in vicious England the best women are virgins.

If only the Archbishop of Canterbury were to go naked in the streets and beg for his bread!

The new Christ, like the old, is the friend of publicans and sinners; because his nature is ascetic.

O if everyman did No Matter What, provided that it is the one thing that he will not and cannot do!

I comment on this poem (along with a poem by Blake) to a degree here: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2013/04/three-cheers-forchastity.html

On aristocratic values, I direct you to the well-known joke "The Aristocrats."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

There is some amount of delving to deep into a simple question. As far as I am aware I did not say that Crowley said this or implied it or thought it or did anything at all with the idea.
I said that my own views on the complete subjectivity of Magick, special K of course, do not in any way lessen my personal interests in the perpetuation of the grand illusion.
But it seems sometimes there are those who dare not smile at the stupidity of humanity for fear of the collapse of their own belief, based as it is upon the dreams of another.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"david" wrote:
What do you understand by that term "middle-class morality"?  Does it differ from proletarian or aristocratic morality?

I take Crowley to be referring to what are often regarded as prudish, conservative values often adopted by the bourgeois, both to distinguish themselves from the lower classes (and to think of themselves as superior or more refined than those lower classes) and to aspire to what they imagine are the "sophisticated" upper classes.

For more on this subject, I direct you to Chapter 60 of The Book of Lies, "The Wound of Amfortas"known joke "The Aristocrats."

I am busy of late and need time to come back to this.  I am contemplating whether this is culturally obsolete as we are now in the 21st century and a lot of Crolwey's sociological and moral critiques are now laughable as they are the norm. 

Besides "middle class" what does that mean nowadays?  An "artisan"  can earn three times as much as a college professor and university entrance rquirements don't really involve family tree analysis of the candidate.  There are more self made millionaires now than ever before also; class is blurry but in Crowley's day especially in England the class system was iron clad.  If you didn't speak the Queen's English in the UK then you were instantly judged and categorized.  Look at America, you have the slow ridiculous drawl of the "old money" East coasters but apart from that the way you speak "don't mean shit"......generally in terms of income brackets and education levels.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:

I comment on this poem (along with a poem by Blake) to a degree here: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2013/04/three-cheers-forchastity.html

On aristocratic values, I direct you to the well-known joke "The Aristocrats."

That's a very good essay on your blog which highlights the fact that we're not just discussing class, chastity or prudishness  per se but any internalized moral codification or conditioned attitude and how it can shield the True Self.  You also give a good critique of Crowley's mindless sexism. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

A good example of modern "middle class" morality is a guy who jacks off to internet porn but he never admits to it and would be outraged if his sister or daughter was set on a career in such an industry.  It's double standards.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 

How does that relate to the subject of this thread, "Is there any such thing as objective Magick"?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Yes, I wondered how this sudden veer off into the subject of the bourgeoisie quite fitted in with the original title or the thread topic, and pleasant though it always is to read another plug for Los’s blogsite!

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5564
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
How does that relate to the subject of this thread, "Is there any such thing as objective Magick"?

Lashtal is currently under attack by off-topic postings in many threads, and many threads are not even related to the purpose/goal of Lashtal. It's like the situation in the middle-east: Independent jihadist groups are popping up everywhere. And in some cases they pop up in the home country (UK, USA). It's just a reflection of the outer world.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

"Thelemites of the World unite! You've nothing to lose but your Book Collections!"


ReplyQuote
Share: