Notifications
Clear all

Outside the Circles of Time - update  

Page 7 / 8
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/08/2008 4:19 pm  

Thanks for those comments chaps - you're always good to read.

A few thoughts on structure:

I think it could be said that Grant is a writer whose forte is the short essay, and one could view this tendency as beginning with his introductions to Austin Spare's exhibition catalogues, moving on through The Carfax Monographs, the part-work Man, Myth & Magic, and thence into the Trilogies with refinements and elaborations being introduced along the way. None of Grant's books end with a climactic flourish, or even a chapter summarising what's gone before; rather like my English teacher said of the Iliad, they don't end - they just stop. That's strange, isn't it? In a sense they appear to be compilations of articles grouped together by theme, with intermittent 'anomalous' chapters that appear to have slipped in from elsewhere, though these latter generally tend to link up with sections of subsequent books and often introduce ideas in shorthand form that Grant would later develop at greater length. Curiously, in the Trilogy books the glossaries actually serve as the summary final chapter, and if you pay attention to these you'll see that where subject entries are repeated in different books, Grant gradually changes and adds a little to their definitions - squeezing another drop out each time, so to speak.

I'd also suggest that whilst Grant has often been criticised for hintity-hinting at certain matters whilst failing to deliver the goods (or at least delivering them so many years later that anyone who was waiting for the money shot has forgotten what the point was all about when it finally comes), this has sometimes been less to do with Grant trying to look haughtily clever than with publishing schedules and the vagaries of the people who physically put his books into print (viz: Muller and Skoob). Grant complained to me on a couple of points I picked up with him that they were intended to lead on to ideas developed in the next book, because he'd imagined that the next book would appear the next year, as they did through the first few Trilogy volumes. At the time of asking however the volumes in question had not appeared, and did not until Starfire Publishing took them on. I had felt that Grant was holding out, but it proved that he was being perfectly direct - I found my answers just where he said they would be.

Circles is quite a crucial marker in Grant's opus, because it was the last we had heard from him for a decade, until Hecate appeared. Because the material in Circles was metaphysically more ambitious and challenging (in Thelemic terms at least, with the presentation of Maatian Aeonic theory), and because Muller had evidently ceased to view Grant as a potential seller (printing Circles on a cheap paper which turned a hepatic yellow within a very short time), we - the younger readers of the day - could have been forgiven for imagining that Grant had come, been and gone - and possibly gone completely loopy en route - leaving only traces behind. Circles was certainly the book that many from the 80s period would judge Grant by alone, because whilst its predecessors were fairly scarce on the secondhand market, Circles turned up frequently on, say, stalls at Camden Market. This has tended to work against it in some ways, and against the author. I think Circles has a broad sweep that makes best sense when viewed in the context of the sequence of Trilogy volumes to that point - read it isolation, coming fresh from Crowley material... well, some of it can just seem loopy.

Grant's Trilogy books appear to be compiled from articles written during a given period of time, hence the works which are more 'sustained' tend to be the novels and works of 'faction' such as Hecate's Fountain. In the latter instance an over-arching structure is provided through the idea of the Lodge, the Annals etc. and by drawing characters (if ever so sketchily, before they are dispatched to the uttermost abysses of gelatinous gluey substances, or to Colney Hatch*), but viewed individually the chapters follow the general Trilogy pattern of addressing particular 'problems' (in the mathematical sense). The novels, again, are episodic, and the novellas of course are short form works again.

Although it's not really practical - economically at least - to scissor up Grant's books and reassemble the separate chapters in themed groups, it is at least possible to read them in this zig-zag fashion - in case you haven't already done so. New patterns will emerge.

A final thought: There's one thing you can learn, if nothing else, from reading the works of Kenneth Grant, and that is the deliciously - indeed lubriciously - portentous effect to be got from an artful deployment of the word "certain".

o

* Colney Hatch; a psychiatric institution in Barnet, near London, England. Established in 1851. Closed in 1993. Its name became a popular byword for insanity and the possibility of being 'locked up'. Much used as an after-hours drinking club by members in good standing of Nu Isis Lodge, following the discovery that a curious velvet-covered door in the wall of the bar opened directly into the basement of a certain occult bookshop in Bloomsbury, thus saving the Lodge kitty a substantial sum in taxi fares. Group bookings welcomed; trapeze and aquaria can be provided by arrangement with the janitor.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
20/08/2008 11:08 pm  

93 Kyle,

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
This "formula" establishes the place of the Beast within the Cup (or Womb) of Babalon. Herein the "Beast" splits into 2 (or 333/333) and the Ordeal is one of destroying the duality.

Yes, this is clearly identified by Crowley:

And therefore is Confusion or Terror in any such Practice an Error fearful indeed, bringing about Obsession, which is a temporary or even it may be a permanent Division of the Personality, or Insanity, and therefore a defeat most fatal and pernicious, a Surrender of the Soul to Choronzon.

But that is Crowley's description of a Black Brother, not of the Beast. Crowley's description of the Babe of the Abyss/Magister is as a single silent particulum (Liber XV, etc.), a single grain of sand that grows in the oyster of Babalon. This is how Grant "develops" Crowley! Clearly there is profound conflict.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
AC honored Blake who, in his poetry, despised "Babylon and the Beast." But we all know Blake's reading of the Bible was as a spiritual act, utilizing the symbolism to express his Gnosis. Blake's "Babylon" is NOT Crowley's "Babalon." By the same token, Mr. Grant, a poet, a writer of horror stories, an Eastern Mystic, a Thelemite, creatively utilizes the symbolism at hand to serve as a VEHICLE of vision.

I disagree with your interpretation of Blake -- Babalon is the Church, the congregation of London; accursed but born of holiness. Mother of Saints, Mother of Sinners; source of all life. He seems to share the conception of Dee/Kelley -- there's considerable consistency; but that is beside the point. You treat Blake and Crowley as if the symbolism they used meant opposite things to each of them, and accept by this token that Grant uses the same symbols as Crowley but assigns them differing meaning. This is the substance of my argument, so I rest my case. We don't need to go on to discuss the "Wordless Aeon" thing.

However, I will go on to address your claim for Grant:

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
In as much as AC recognized William Blake as "Thine Uncle William O'Neil [sic]," I believe he would also have recognized KG as "Thine Uncle, Aossic Aiwass."

This is an amusing effort at canonisation, but we can all play games of "I think what Crowley meant to say was..." Would AC approve of Grant using the name "Aiwass", which was the name of Crowley's own Holy Guardian Angel? Of course not, don't be ridiculous -- it is an attempt by Grant to claim Thelemic authority, and effectively claim Thelema and its interpretation for himself. If you are inviting me to guess what Crowley's real opinion of Grant would be, I would say that in my opinion he would have denounced Grant as a "Black Brother". There are fairly strong grounds for taking this view, after all. Quite whether the insult is justified is of no concern to me, and as a subject of discussion it's a dead end.

Now, however, others on this thread seem to think Grant's opposition to Crowley's estate is somehow at the root of this criticism of Grant. I think that may be to put the cart before the horse. Briefly, having read Spence's Secret Agent 666, the Crowley-Symonds-Grant nexus can be imagined differently. Crowley is the intelligence agent with a past to disguise, Symonds is the helpful editor/agent who expunges the key information about Crowley's intelligence work in Confessions, and Grant -- in this hypothetical scenario -- is the patsy who "bought" a number of silly ideas like Atlantis and the US military UFO scam and tried to turn Thelema into a UFO religion and offshoot of arachnophile and squid-o-phile cults. Grant conveniently didn't take enough of an interest to object to the important intelligence-related excisions from the Confessions, nor show knowledge of the extent of Crowley's intelligence activities that they revealed. And Grant's blatant subversions of Crowley's philosophy (which still has to be explained to some fanatics), beginning with the New Isis Manifesto, created a dead end for Thelema/OTO that would have served what a reasonable person would think was the goal of the intelligence services at the time.

It seems that MI5's motive would have been slightly different from that of MI6; but the end would have been roughly the same: control over, or ceasing of, Crowley's public Thelema/A.'.A.'./OTO operation. Germer wasn't trusted by the FBI and MI5, possibly also MI6, but they did know of his existence, and would have known that Crowley appointed him chief of OTO. This would have displeased them. Grant, a young ex-disciple with probably no intelligence connections of his own, who seemed quite unthreatening, could have been a godsend for them. They would have seen that no group headed by Grant could ever be taken seriously by society at large! Consider: if Symonds were an agent of some kind, which seems an unspoken accusation in Spence, then it becomes imperative to ask why Symonds accepted Grant's OTO claim when the intelligence services already knew of Germer and the other OTO members. There is, at least, enough to suppose that H.M. Govt. would have vetted Grant for such a post as the takeover of Crowley's occult club/spy ring. Therefore I would think it reasonable to suppose that they tacitly approved of Grant, and regarded him as a good candidate to kill off Thelema/OTO. At least, Grant didn't hurt their plans; but how much of an interest the intelligence and security services actually took (or take) in Grant and his publishing is a subject for conjecture, although there seems no reason to suppose they took objection to his doings any more than they did any other man's; and, as noted, neither did Grant object to Symonds's excisions from the Confessions.

Of course, another scenario might place Grant as an MI5 agent employed to infiltrate Crowley's circle from the very beginning: an avatar of Set to oppose Crowley's Horus, as he might put it -- maybe he's England's answer to Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, the intelligence officer who -- for probably personal reasons -- split the Church of Satan. But this seems an extreme of hypothetical possibility, and I am aware of no evidence to support this hypothesis. Another hypothesis might be that Grant felt so aggrieved by Crowley's rejection that he devoted his life to subverting his teachings. This is not incompatible with the "patsy" hypothesis; but as long as Grant doesn't actually asssert this to be true, then it will remain supposition.

Without further help on this -- perhaps from Grant, who I gather is a member of this forum -- then on balance I would conclude that Grant was used as a convenient nutter to help dispose of OTO. He has been remarkably consistent in attacking OTO's lineage, copyright and legal status. It'll be interesting to see what he decides to do next.

People who haven't read Spence may go berserk on reading the above paragraphs, but I hope those people can refrain from replying unless there is some good reason. To those that have read it, I am indicating possible lines of enquiry for anyone with a penchant for research. At the very least, MI5 are a lot closer to hand than "the influence from Sirius... balanced on the Inner Planes by the Maatian influence focussed by Andromeda" that Grant claims informs his group.

A final point, and perhaps the strongest evidence that "something" is going on here: the reason the UK Govt aren't releasing the Crowley files, and apparently want us to believe none exist, is almost certainly because parts of the file are current. To pin it down slightly more, I would conjecture that one or more of the persons who had a part to play in Crowley's intelligence work are still alive. Maybe they take more of an interest in us than we really notice. Spence's little book, and the unexpurgated Confessions, are changing everything.

I don't see much of interest in the other replies, except that I fully support the motion submitted by Bro. Bazelek -- publisher of Grant and art dealer extraordinaire -- that we view Grant as an artist!

93 93/93

Ian


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
21/08/2008 2:43 am  

Ian-

Aside from tipping the hat to Steffi for her wonderful contributions to the picture pages of OTCOT, I can only see in your posts a continuous attempt to discredit Mr. Kenneth Grant. In your most recent post above, you offer a slew of unsubstantiated speculations which can hardly be accepted as "proof" for your initial point that "Grant is the enemey of Crowley."

Your "arguments" seem to be constructed to lead away from the major issues and themes, rather than addressing them head-on. My point re: Blake was simple and concise. Blake's reading of the Bible was unique to his vision and certainly not that of any orthodox church. AC perceived in Blake elements belonging to Thelema and to substantial spiritual insight, not the chrisitianity he despised. Kudos to Crowley. Crowley's own use of the symbol-set was not Blake's. Throughout all his poetry, Blake uses the name JESUS to denote "The Divine Imagination" as something most holy and crucial to human fulfillment. Just because Crowley doesn't follow suit with his own use of the same name doesn't mean he and Blake are diametrically opposed.

Amongst his many achievements, Crowley was a myth-maker. He evoked Egyptian Gods, Biblical symbolism and so on in a unique meld which forms something of the "common language" of the Thelemic subculture. Grant is no different-I see some of his use of the pre-existing Crowleyan symbol set as a stumbling stone for yourself . Alas, this is the sort of thing artists do! And to acknowledge that Grant is an artist is not to belittle the profundity of his vision. Blake was an "artist," a "poet" and yet this aesthetic means was the vehicle whereby he channeled his entire philosophy and experience of deeper strata of reality, a "cosmic consciousness," if you will.

I don't see much of interest in the other replies

That's too bad because its in the exploration of the artisitry of the Trilogies that one might touch upon the continually developing vision of Kenneth Grant, which, as many of us who have given it more than a passing glance have found, contains sufficient evidence that he is neither a dupe nor an antagonist to core Thelemic ideals but a self-possessed magician whose work stirs the potential in his readers to become the same.

It's quite evident from my many posts on this thread that I am a deep admirer of Mr. Grant's work and my own spiritual path entails many elements unique to the Typhonian Tradition. But I do not regard Grant as my default authority any more than I do with Crowley or any other human being. He has something from me greater than obeisance...he has my gratitude and respect.

But let me ask you: since you believe that Grant is the "enemy of Crowley" (based in whatever postulate) do you also feel that those of us who pursue Thelema along "Typhonian" treadings are likewise?

Based on all I've written above, do you perceive ME as another "Enemy of Crowley?"

And regardless of the answer,

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
21/08/2008 3:41 am  

Ian-

You wrote

Grant, who I gather is a member of this forum

Um...and upon what information would you base this speculation? I gather than he prefers a typewriter to a keyboard and although there has been a member here utilizing a screen name bearing some similarity to Mr. Grant's Magickal Name, I understand from several sources that its not KG, nor even a resident of the UK.

Just curious....

Kyle


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
21/08/2008 4:05 am  

93 Kyle,

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Aside from tipping the hat to Steffi for her wonderful contributions to the picture pages of OTCOT, I can only see in your posts a continuous attempt to discredit Mr. Kenneth Grant.

I think that's a little unfair. I have criticisms of Grant -- let's not make it personal. I've stuck to the points -- please show me the same courtesy.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
In your most recent post above, you offer a slew of unsubstantiated speculations which can hardly be accepted as "proof" for your initial point that "Grant is the enemey of Crowley."

Sounds like you haven't read Secret Agent 666.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Your "arguments" seem to be constructed to lead away from the major issues and themes, rather than addressing them head-on.

Nonsense. I have stuck doggedly to the points about "Choronzon" and Grant's "Wordless Aeon" right from the beginning -- the stuff about Grant being an MI5 patsy only occured to me in the last day, and I only mentioned it after you inadvertantly accepted my contention re: Grant's abuse of Crowley's terminology. It is others such as yourself who keep having to be reminded to stick to the points. (Here you waste a lot of time talking about Blake, which is clearly beside the point. And Crowley did use IHShVH, so your analogy doesn't work again. I refer you back to my previous post.)

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Crowley [...] evoked Egyptian Gods, Biblical symbolism and so on in a unique meld which forms something of the "common language" of the Thelemic subculture. Grant is no different

Thanks for at least getting close to one of the points, however you are still practically begging the question. I don't dispute that Grant used similar symbols to Crowley -- in fact that is necessary for my argument. What I do say is that Grant has abused Crowley's terminology by subverting the meanings of the symbols so it all ends up as "hotch-potch". This is getting extremely frustrating for me, since I feel that you're taking very little effort to pay attention to what I'm saying.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
That's too bad because its in the exploration of the artisitry of the Trilogies that one might touch upon the continually developing vision of Kenneth Grant, which, as many of us who have given it more than a passing glance have found, contains sufficient evidence that he is neither a dupe nor an antagonist to core Thelemic ideals but a self-possessed magician whose work stirs the potential in his readers to become the same.

So you basically say you believe Grant? Well, I knew that anyway. I'm trying to put different evidence to you, but you're simply sweeping it under the carpet. Did you read that Dave Evans article that I referred you to, by the way?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
But let me ask you: since you believe that Grant is the "enemy of Crowley" (based in whatever postulate) do you also feel that those of us who pursue Thelema along "Typhonian" treadings are likewise?

Based on all I've written above, do you perceive ME as another "Enemy of Crowley?"

I didn't say Grant is "the" enemy of Crowley. I said that his writings and his actions showed him to be "an" enemy of Crowley. If you'd opposed AC's last will and testament then I might have said the same about you, but you haven't. It interests me that Grant be critically analysed so that people aren't deceived by him. I only attack what you say insofar as you mimic Grant -- it isn't a personal matter, and you simply aren't any more relevant than Blake.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I gather than he prefers a typewriter to a keyboard and although there has been a member here utilizing a screen name bearing some similarity to Mr. Grant's Magickal Name, I understand from several sources that its not KG, nor even a resident of the UK.

Well I suppose there's no point asking him anyway -- he'd hardly admit it, would he?

93 93/93

Ian


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
21/08/2008 9:32 am  

There seems to be a bit of tension in the air after that last one, so now we'll have an intermission, during which waitresses will circulate with drinks trolleys and advertise MICHAEL STALEY'S NEW FORUM OPENING SOMEWHERE SOON!!!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 11:00 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
MICHAEL STALEY'S NEW FORUM OPENING SOMEWHERE SOON!!!

Ooh - meow meow.

There's something infinitely tragic about an insult hurled when the recipient is already safely away down the road and out of earshot...

😆

o


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 12:10 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
I didn't say Grant is "the" enemy of Crowley. I said that his writings and his actions showed him to be "an" enemy of Crowley. If you'd opposed AC's last will and testament then I might have said the same about you, but you haven't. It interests me that Grant be critically analysed so that people aren't deceived by him.

Wow, you really, really don't like this guy, do you? - I like your style! 😆

When it comes to "enemies of Crowley" - well, there's a queue for that I'm afraid, and my feeling is that Grant is quite a long way down it, behind several hundred other Thelemites amongst others... (As if Crowley gives a flying one anyway.)

Your image of Grant as a latter-day Lee Harvey Oswald, complaining of being beaten up in custody and stating flatly to camera "I'm just a patsy" is an absolute cracker! Perhaps I should ask who precisely is lined up to play Jack Ruby here? Or perhaps I shouldn't - may we take a guess?

Call me a filthy subjectivist, but I think I'll enjoy living in a world where I draw pleasure from Grant’s work as well as from your man's book on intelligence activities, without insisting upon the ascendancy of one "reality" over the other - or indeed upon ideas of “truth”, which long, long ago failed to live up to its initial promise. It is risky in the extreme to make assertions about 'reality' when so little is known about it, apart from the fact that it is soluble in alcohol.

It interests me that Grant be critically analysed so that people aren't deceived by him.

Quite right too, it's plainly a question of public protection. I wouldn't trust magicians to make up their own minds either - let alone Thelemites. But if you take Alan Moore's piece from Kaos 14 and Dave Evan's essay together, I think even a complete noob would get the gist from those, prior to setting out on that torturous course that could well lead to insanity, deception, getting enjoyment out of a man's works, or - worse! - agreeing with something he said and hence effectively forfeiting a plimsoll to the gloop of the Mauve Zone etc. etc. So two questions arise: Who did you have in mind to "analyse" Grant, and should you be calling in a proctologist?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I gather than he prefers a typewriter to a keyboard...

As a side-note; Several years ago now I offered to send some bit of music or other to Grant on CD; he thanked me for the offer, but asserted "I do not own a 'compact disc player'..." Perhaps he used speechmarks as a matter of punctuational probity, but he rather made it sound as if he were holding the very notion away from his body on long tongs. Hence the likelihood of Grant possessing a computer and internet connection is remote indeed I think. You may speak freely.

o


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 4:46 pm  

Well, well, well...

I have just recently read Spence on Crowley myself, as well as rereading my old yellowing 1980 Muller edition of OTCOT, the one with the OTO Lamen on the spine...which reminds me that I will never be able to fully share in the perspective of the UK OTO Grand Lodge in its recent battle in the legal trenches, or that of the opposition during that conflict, or the post-traumatic stress that seems to have inflicted some of the parties concerned as a result. Michael Staley is off pouting, as he seems prone to do, and Ian Rons is ever on the defensive, as he seems prone to be.

Kenneth Grant is seemingly somewhere outside the circles of time, sans computer, but hopefully with running water... Only after his Greater Feast do I really expect some degree of calm and clarity to bring some relief to this conflict. No disrespect intended.

In the mean time, this question from Kyle stands out in my mind:

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Ian-
But let me ask you: since you believe that Grant is the "enemy of Crowley" (based in whatever postulate) do you also feel that those of us who pursue Thelema along "Typhonian" treadings are likewise?

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 5:03 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
...Ian Rons is ever on the defensive, as he seems prone to be

Hopefully someone'll let us know whom, precisely, he's defending, so I can offer them my commiserations.

o


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
21/08/2008 5:17 pm  

Hopefully someone'll let us know whom, precisely, he's defending, so I can offer them my commiserations

The government is not prepared to release this information! 😆


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 6:35 pm  
"oneiros" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
...Ian Rons is ever on the defensive, as he seems prone to be

Hopefully someone'll let us know whom, precisely, he's defending, so I can offer them my commiserations.

o

While I do not share Ian's degree of concern that Typhonian Thelema and Crowlian Thelema are necessarily incompatible, I do agree with him that Crowley's Orders, as he intended them, would have lapsed into oblivion had they been successfully consigned to Grant. The former is a theoretical concern, but the latter is a very practical one. The fault in this conflict is clearly with Grant and his attempted inclusion of Crowley's Orders in his opera. In fact, by doing so, Grant actually put the appreciation of any merit to his work in jeopardy, as there is now prejudice against it related to the Order issues.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 6:50 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
The fault in this conflict is clearly with Grant and his attempted inclusion of Crowley's Orders in his opera. In fact, by doing so, Grant actually put the appreciation of any merit to his work in jeopardy, as there is now prejudice against it related to the Order issues.

Camlion, I think you're spot on there. Grant should maybe have operated a separate order alongside the OTO. He could then have gradually moved away from the OTO which he had obviously outgrown and allowed it to continue under someone elses leadership.

I get the impression all the best magicians seem to outgrow the OTO after a while. It serves its purpose but maybe after a while folks need to go off and form their own orders.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
21/08/2008 6:53 pm  

And what of Ian Rons' speculation based upon Spence's revelations?

It does seem genuinely astonishing that so many excisions by Symonds and/or Grant from Crowley's "Confessions" appear to relate primarily to matters that could be taken by an impartial reader to support his claims to have been involved in intelligence work on behalf of HM Government. Are we seriously to believe that these excisions were, as has been claimed by supporters of Grant on this very site, intended solely to reduce the work to a manageable single-volume length? If so, that's an extraordinary coincidence.

Using the logic of Sherlock Holmes, it seems most probable that one of the editors deliberately removed numerous paragraphs directly connected with Crowley's intelligence work and that the rediscovery of those paragraphs put his activities in an entirely new and significantly more sympathetic light.

Several questions obviously arise:

1 - Who made the cuts? Grant or Symonds? Or both?
2 - Why? And at whose request or instruction?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 7:05 pm  
"nashimiron" wrote:
Camlion, I think you're spot on there. Grant should maybe have operated a separate order alongside the OTO. He could then have gradually moved away from the OTO which he had obviously outgrown and allowed it to continue under someone elses leadership.

Exactly so.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 7:09 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
1 - Who made the cuts? Grant or Symonds? Or both?
2 - Why? And at whose request or instruction?

Maybe it was something as ostensibly innocent as one or both of two old-school-tie fellows in the 1970s crossing through sections they felt could be dubious. Many of that generation would do the same, being under the Old Aeon misapprehension that they might "get into trouble". The paranoid culture of secrecy enforced during the Second World War could perhaps account for this.

Perhaps they had noticed that the counterculture was providing a sympathetic, nutritious medium in which a revigorated cult of Crowley could grow, and decided that it would be useful to remove portions that could suggest that Crowley was working for "the Man".

I, however, prefer to imagine that there are dark forces at work, over which we have no control, as our own beloved Queen (is alleged to have) said. And I don't mean those funny stains behind the sink, or Carl McCoy, get me?

Wink wink.

I think Special Branch are on to this thread, so I'm going to hang up. Bye.

o


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
21/08/2008 7:15 pm  

The Old Boys Network? Just more speculation, I'm afraid.

It's a curious matter, though, and the only person likely to be in a position to provide facts is unlikely to do so. So we'll be left in the dark... Until the information from various files comes to light - as it most certainly will.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 7:23 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
The Old Boys Network? Just more speculation, I'm afraid.

It's a curious matter, though, and the only person likely to be in a position to provide facts is unlikely to do so. So we'll be left in the dark... Until the information from various files comes to light - as it most certainly will.

I too would be very interested in the facts of the matter, Paul, for the sake of Crowley's legacy. But, I agree, we are probably just as likely to get the answers from Mr. Symonds as we are from Mr. Grant. 🙁


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 8:02 pm  

I just finished Spence's book and found it, like other theories on this thread, to have far more circumstantial conjecture and speculation than actual documented evidence regarding Crowley's involvement with the Intelligence community. He does provide some evidence and some of the conjecture is quite plausible but he also makes assertions without any real evidence ( eg. Yorke was AC's caseworker for British Intelligence) and presents apocryphal stories from dubious sources ( eg. Moore's bio on Gurdjieff) as fact.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
21/08/2008 8:49 pm  
"oneiros" wrote:
Perhaps they had noticed that the counterculture was providing a sympathetic, nutritious medium in which a revigorated cult of Crowley could grow, and decided that it would be useful to remove portions that could suggest that Crowley was working for "the Man".

93!

I would dismiss this option. I think there is enough written evidence that Symonds was not too much interested in painting a positive picture of Crowley or that his life and work should be regarded as a role model for the counterculture. And moreover, any proof for Crowley working for the British during the War, would have made the man MORE sympathetic (or at least more honest) since that was what he told in his Confessions anyway, although the way that story was presented made it sound like a lousy excuse for his pro-German sentiments.

Ian's speculations sound intriguing, although I personally think that even if Grant was working for the secret service (and it is surprising how many intellectuals and eccentrics were), to conclude that the whole of Grant's magical system is based on that, seems a bit too much for me.

But speculating is okay and often accelerates new factual findings.

"nashimiron" wrote:
Grant should maybe have operated a separate order alongside the OTO. He could then have gradually moved away from the OTO which he had obviously outgrown and allowed it to continue under someone elses leadership.

I agree and I always wondered why the OTO matter was so highly important to Grant, I mean, he called himself OHO on nearly every occasion.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
21/08/2008 9:01 pm  

First of all, congratulations to Mr. Grant on the republication of his book. I predict it will sell out. Everyone who chooses to buy it will be pleased and on the remote chance that any of them are disappointed they can hang on a bit and resell it at a profit. Win, win, win.

I agree with Zardoz about the extent of the conjecture in Spence. I think that having arrived at a sound conclusion he bolstered it with all the fascination circumstantial material that was too good to leave out from a 'let's write an interesting book' point of view. He's not dealing with a live case and if your job is to see spies why not see them everywhere.

I disagree that the excisions from Confessions bear especially on the intelligence connection. Only about half of one sixth of Confessions deal with the wartime period and that does include The Last Straw for instance and the general statement of which side he's on + earlier he states that he went to Russia to learn Russian for the Diplomatic Service etc. I do not have access to the as yet missing material but even if it is explicit it cannot on quantity grounds outweigh the missing material on other subjects.

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/08/2008 9:28 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"oneiros" wrote:
Perhaps they had noticed that the counterculture was providing a sympathetic, nutritious medium in which a revigorated cult of Crowley could grow, and decided that it would be useful to remove portions that could suggest that Crowley was working for "the Man".

93!

I would dismiss this option. I think there is enough written evidence that Symonds was not too much interested in painting a positive picture of Crowley or that his life and work should be regarded as a role model for the counterculture. And moreover, any proof for Crowley working for the British during the War, would have made the man MORE sympathetic (or at least more honest) since that was what he told in his Confessions anyway, although the way that story was presented made it sound like a lousy excuse for his pro-German sentiments.

Ian's speculations sound intriguing, although I personally think that even if Grant was working for the secret service (and it is surprising how many intellectuals and eccentrics were), to conclude that the whole of Grant's magical system is based on that, seems a bit too much for me.

But speculating is okay and often accelerates new factual findings.

"nashimiron" wrote:
Grant should maybe have operated a separate order alongside the OTO. He could then have gradually moved away from the OTO which he had obviously outgrown and allowed it to continue under someone elses leadership.

I agree and I always wondered why the OTO matter was so highly important to Grant, I mean, he called himself OHO on nearly every occasion.

Love=Law
Lutz

Very possibly you're quite correct.

Also, William Burroughs holed up in his room in Tangier with tape recorders, typewriter and scissors, was a rogue CIA who'd lost the plot through drug abuse. He was right to be paranoid about 'Control' because they really were after him. I've heard that one too. I love a good story!

o


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
21/08/2008 11:14 pm  

93 All,

"lashtal" wrote:
It does seem genuinely astonishing that so many excisions by Symonds and/or Grant from Crowley's "Confessions" appear to relate primarily to matters that could be taken by an impartial reader to support his claims to have been involved in intelligence work on behalf of HM Government. Are we seriously to believe that these excisions were, as has been claimed by supporters of Grant on this very site, intended solely to reduce the work to a manageable single-volume length? If so, that's an extraordinary coincidence.

Using the logic of Sherlock Holmes, it seems most probable that one of the editors deliberately removed numerous paragraphs directly connected with Crowley's intelligence work and that the rediscovery of those paragraphs put his activities in an entirely new and significantly more sympathetic light.

Several questions obviously arise:

1 - Who made the cuts? Grant or Symonds? Or both?
2 - Why? And at whose request or instruction?

I think you've summarised this very well, and I hope others can step in and offer clues. Unfortunately at the moment we can only hope to address point (1), and even then imperfectly (without an admission from Grant or some other source). What do we really know about point (1), though?

"lashtal" wrote:
It's a curious matter, though, and the only person likely to be in a position to provide facts is unlikely to do so. So we'll be left in the dark... Until the information from various files comes to light - as it most certainly will.

You certainly sound confident, but do you really feel we will see this info coming to light? It does seem as though Crowley's reputation is being gradually rehabilitated, and that he will one day be clutched to the national bosom; so I certainly hope to see it, and am optimistic that we will see it. We can, then, all feel a sense of great pride in our Father Baphomet! But I think the unabridged Confessions, which I gather is at 2000 pages and counting, will be a hugely important step in this gradual process. Who could have guessed how important that work would turn out to be? There has been a lot of scoffing, including from myself...

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Ian's speculations sound intriguing, although I personally think that even if Grant was working for the secret service (and it is surprising how many intellectuals and eccentrics were), to conclude that the whole of Grant's magical system is based on that, seems a bit too much for me.

Well, as I said above I think that would be the absolute extreme of possibility; but let me refer you to a quote in Spence -- perhaps the most intriguing and incisive of the book -- from the files of MI6 re: Rudolf Steiner:

[his religious training and initiation into occult secrets] were all preparing him for a career of subtle, underground political intrigue cleverly disguised under the cloak of religious illumination.

Implicit in Spence is the suggestion that this description of Steiner was in some sense based on their view of Crowley; but I really don't think this pattern could be applied to Grant -- after all, he's not really political except with regard to his battle to control OTO. My personal feeling is that Grant just had a grudge against Crowley after his rejection, and has been living it out ever since. At some stage, however, it seems this (or perhaps just the absurdity of Grant's teachings) tied in with Symonds' work for MI5 and/or MI6 and they joined forces for a time, probably unbeknownst to Grant. But what do we really know about Grant and Symonds' relationship? I defer to others with greater knowledge...

"OKontrair" wrote:
I disagree that the excisions from Confessions bear especially on the intelligence connection. Only about half of one sixth of Confessions deal with the wartime period and that does include The Last Straw for instance and the general statement of which side he's on + earlier he states that he went to Russia to learn Russian for the Diplomatic Service etc. I do not have access to the as yet missing material but even if it is explicit it cannot on quantity grounds outweigh the missing material on other subjects.

It does seem like huge amounts were excised. However, the point is that Symonds must have known Crowley was working for British Intelligence, but that nevertheless he let him be regarded as a traitor. In other words, there was an element of deliberation about the excision of *those particular parts*, regardless of whatever motive (laziness? a desire to turn a profit?) led to the excision of the other parts.

Lastly -- I'm a little concerned about oneiros' repeated sniping. For 2 or 3 pages now, he seems to have said a lot but to have added nothing to the discussion. Also he's been quite rude. Is it just me?

93 93/93

Ian


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
21/08/2008 11:16 pm  

P.S. This topic is now the most viewed, and most replied-to, topic anywhere on lashtal.com.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
22/08/2008 12:21 am  

First! Life, Health and Strength to Mr. Grant and his book.

Now. Did I miss the proof that Symonds has any connection with the security services? Even if he were that does not justify any 'must have known' ideas.

Just because a new book is coming out, which I shall buy regardless, does not warrant over blackening the previous effort or its editors. Who knows what constraints they were under but I suspect they were principally commercial. The book was so damn fat it could hardly stand up. Stephenson describes the raw materials arriving in a wheelbarrow and doing a lot of trimming himself.

2000 pages eh? Decent font size or notes and appendices? Dear Father Xmas, please let it be an optional last volume.

OK


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
22/08/2008 1:25 am  

I have nowhere suggested there is "proof", but a couple of times people have commented on the lack of absolute "proof" as if that were evidence of absence of proof. As Paul has indicated, it isn't. Let's discuss this sensibly, from the perspective of what limited evidence there is. We should probably review the excisions included in Secret Agent 666, but maybe it's better if we split this topic into a separate thread and carry on from there?


ReplyQuote
algoul
(@algoul)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 61
22/08/2008 9:31 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
93 All,

Lastly -- I'm a little concerned about oneiros' repeated sniping. For 2 or 3 pages now, he seems to have said a lot but to have added nothing to the discussion. Also he's been quite rude. Is it just me?

93 93/93

Ian

I think that yes you are just you.

If oneiros is rude how could be defined your way of writing?
Moreover when someone is rude he/she must sustain it with some sort of awareness of what one says which it is not your case I think
And he added a lot to the discussion as he has reasons to talk about something which he knows instead of you, or you would like to start insulting him too?

I could understand that in a public discussion there could be different points of view and opposite, sustained with respect, but this does not seem your way as you indulge in some sort of insult and vilification of people, proposing also themes which appear as nuances of childish type, sometimes I wonder how old are you, but if you are happy with that as oneiros said goes on, people could judge easily from your inflated statements

but you know you become what you resist

😈

regards


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/08/2008 9:34 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
Lastly -- I'm a little concerned about oneiros' repeated sniping. For 2 or 3 pages now, he seems to have said a lot but to have added nothing to the discussion. Also he's been quite rude. Is it just me?

It's just you. I'm pulling your leg, non-maliciously. Would you like some smilies as a token of good faith?

🙂 😆 😀

If you think I've added nothing then I'll shove off - but, y'know - with all due respect Ian - you like to say that when people don't agree with your viewpoint.

8)

o

😉


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
22/08/2008 9:42 am  

A noisy spirit.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/08/2008 3:29 pm  

Ian,

Hilarious! My congratulations, sir! You have surpassed even Grant as a “writer of fiction”:) Have you thought of writing a novel?

Paul,

I think I might be one of the people you’re referring to who said they supposed that the Confessions was edited for reasons of size/economics: despite my meagre knowledge of book production and expense, I still stand by that supposition. Applying the principle of ‘Occam’s Razor’, I think it’s the most likely explanation, and there is no need to look for some great conspiracy in what was left out. After all, if the editors decided, for whatever reasons, that one particular subject matter was not worthy of inclusion, then what is more natural than to exclude all references to that subject, rather than leave some in, when some left in might thus appear confusing and out of context?

However, all this talk of conspiracy seems to be based on one major supposition that is, in my opinion, deeply flawed and simply cannot be backed up by an examination of history: and that supposition is simply that ANY of our governments, not just the UK, are in any way intelligent and competent enough to put such a ‘master plan’ into operation LOL!

Of course, I could really be double-o-eleven, master spy, spreading even more disinformation...:)


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
22/08/2008 3:51 pm  
"oneiros" wrote:
Also, William Burroughs holed up in his room in Tangier with tape recorders, typewriter and scissors, was a rogue CIA who'd lost the plot through drug abuse. He was right to be paranoid about 'Control' because they really were after him. I've heard that one too. I love a good story!

o

Only as an Operative, not an actual Agent. Big difference. And Bill *could* have been. Came from a good old-money St. Louis family. He certainly wouldn't have been the first (or last) junkie operative for the O.S.I. or C.I.A.

On a note actually on-topic, Starfire is now mailing the Deluxe editions of this book. I got the E-mail this A.M.

Man alive! I can't wait!!!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/08/2008 3:53 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
It seems that MI5's motive would have been slightly different from that of MI6; but the end would have been roughly the same: control over, or ceasing of, Crowley's public Thelema/A.'.A.'./OTO operation.

Ian!

Don't you remember at Vauxhall that we both made a pact by the Coca-Cola machine that we would not disclose to anyone that we both work for MI6? 😉

How can you do this?!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
22/08/2008 6:02 pm  
"Alastrum" wrote:
I think I might be one of the people you’re referring to who said they supposed that the Confessions was edited for reasons of size/economics: despite my meagre knowledge of book production and expense, I still stand by that supposition.

And I don't doubt for one moment that you're correct: that the primary reason for the substantial excisions was to make it saleable as a realistic project for the publishers. I do wonder why quite so many of the cuts appear to relate to intelligence matters, though...

Of course, I could really be double-o-eleven, master spy, spreading even more disinformation...

No. You're not.

😉

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
22/08/2008 6:04 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
On a note actually on-topic, Starfire is now mailing the Deluxe editions of this book. I got the E-mail this A.M.

Come on, Walter: do try to keep up: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=29648#29648

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
manofwycombe
(@manofwycombe)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 76
22/08/2008 7:42 pm  

93

With "Team GB" being lauded on all the British media, I feel it incumbent on me to join what Ian has told us is already a record-breaking combination of the marathon and relay..............and relevance to the topic, er... has anyone else commented on the wonderful endpapers in the new edition?

93 93/93

Clive


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
22/08/2008 9:53 pm  

They're lovely...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
23/08/2008 1:52 am  

They're lovely...

I'm hopeful that the re-release of The Magical Revival will also see a similar approach. Steffi's work with wood and ink is glorious...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/08/2008 3:00 am  

Maybe she was inspired by you Kyle 😉
By the way, did anyone notice the Thoth tarot card that was included with the deluxe?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
23/08/2008 4:53 am  

The endpapers? 48 naked ladies? Phwoar!

"Alastrum" wrote:
there is no need to look for some great conspiracy in what was left out. After all, if the editors decided, for whatever reasons, that one particular subject matter was not worthy of inclusion, then what is more natural than to exclude all references to that subject, rather than leave some in, when some left in might thus appear confusing and out of context?

Some references were left in (as you can see for yourself in the Symonds & Grant edition), but the important substantive bits were left out. That seems deliberate. Did I mention that?! I wish you'd taken the trouble to read Spence before replying...

"Alastrum" wrote:
However, all this talk of conspiracy seems to be based on one major supposition that is, in my opinion, deeply flawed and simply cannot be backed up by an examination of history: and that supposition is simply that ANY of our governments, not just the UK, are in any way intelligent and competent enough to put such a ‘master plan’ into operation LOL!

I don't see what's so "master plan" about redacting the memoirs of a famous former agent like Crowley. After all, their existence was well publicised in 1929 with an 8-page booklet, followed by the first two volumes. It would have taken considerable feats of stupidity for anyone to ignore it. But since you are an example of "British intelligence" you may have a point.

Anyway, I'll leave you to get back to the topic of this thread...


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
23/08/2008 6:22 pm  

48 naked ladies? Phwoar!

Er...Ian? I count 15 "naked ladies" which are accompanied by their "shadow," thus forming a design featuring 30 female forms.

On p. 27, Mr. Grant observes:

"Although there are 30 Kalas there appear to be 32...the extra two being reflections of the sun and the moon in the priestess when she functions on the paths of Daath and Saturn."

The "extra 2" may very well be reflected in the end papers repeating the formula (the "30 women") TWICE.

Just an observation...

Let the "Kalas from Space" flow! 😉

Kyle


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
23/08/2008 6:54 pm  

Er...Ian? I count 15 "naked ladies" which are accompanied by their "shadow

Zowie...and my bad....I recount 48, including our Shadow Mistresses!

24 hours in each day and the backside of the clock? 🙂


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
23/08/2008 8:19 pm  

Upon reflecting on my need to read Outside the Circles of Time OUTSIDE of its dustjacket (!), the presentation of that double feminine form in 2 sequences of 12 DOES seem to be, perhaps, an appropriate place to turn the thread away from conspiracy and back towards its content.

Thinking of the Kalas, it is a word which Mr. Grant also links to Kali, who is, amongst other attributes, the Goddess of TIME. The 24 images MAY have some connection to the hours of the day but also the Zodiac (also a sequencing of 12), which is of import when examining the Aeons, a theme explored in the book. Here we encounter the idea that:

"Man stands...upon the Threshold of a Wordless Aeon." The question is how the sundry "Aeons" connect to the core Thelemic symbolism of the Aeon of Horus, which Mr. Grant also acknowledges is the "present Aeon."

The duality of Horus as RHK and HPK might indicate a "backside" to the dual-God as "Silence," and hence, "lack" of a Word-but I think there is more to it than that. The Word ABRAHADABRA indicates an 11 fold formula. I would suggest that it may also represent 11 signs of the Zodiac with the 12th being the Sign and House of the Wordless Aeon.

On page 4, Mr. Grant indicates that there is an especial importance to the Sign of Gemini with regards to the Wordless Aeon. This has its reflex in Sagittarius, which follows Capricorn or Maat. Between Maat (capricorn) and Gemini, we have 6 signs. Sagittarius stands without a "Word" and the rest of the Zodiac follows with 5 signs. Thus a Wordless Aeon back of an 11 fold manifestation. The symbolism of these Signs and corresponding Aeons can certainly be discussed at greater length but it is very interesting that RHK emerging as the active manifestation of the God of Silence has as his "reward" the word ABRAHADABRA. And whereas Chapter 3 of Liber AL focuses on RHK, Aiwass identifies Himself as the Minister of HPK. The Aeon of "Horus," as such seems to be a revelatory reflex of a Wordless Aeon, its emergence evoking the other states of being and awareness.

It is peculiar that ABRAHADABRA is identified as the "Word of the Aeon" by Crowley yet it was received during the "Cairo Working" ere he laid claim to the title of Magus. If ABRAHADABRA was NOT the "Magus Word" AC uttered, then WHAT was? Or was it sufficient to reach back in time and claim what had already been delivered?

Lutz addressed this above, asking re: Nema and Achad and how their own "utterances" corresponded with their understanding of the Magus Initiation. I think the question is important. That AC was, indeed, a true Magus is not being questioned here. Not do I necessarily feel that his status as such is to be constrained by technicalities over a "Word." But there DOES seem to be a crucial discrepancy re: his self-seen need to utter a Word in conjunction with his Grade and its supposed deliverance previously in 1904.

I am very genuinely interested in how members here understand these two events.

Kyle


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
23/08/2008 10:38 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
But there DOES seem to be a crucial discrepancy re: his self-seen need to utter a Word in conjunction with his Grade and its supposed deliverance previously in 1904.

I am very genuinely interested in how members here understand these two events.

Kyle

I do not see the two events (i.e. the reception of the Word in 1904 e.v. and the assumption of the same as the Word of the Magus) mutually codependent. In my understanding, the Magus does not need to 'discover' the Word but to identify with it as the formula of achievement and as the view of reality telescoped into a verbal symbol. The word Tao is older than Lo Tzu and AUM is older than Krishna.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
23/08/2008 10:55 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
The duality of Horus as RHK and HPK might indicate a "backside" to the dual-God as "Silence," and hence, "lack" of a Word-but I think there is more to it than that. The Word ABRAHADABRA indicates an 11 fold formula. I would suggest that it may also represent 11 signs of the Zodiac with the 12th being the Sign and House of the Wordless Aeon.

It's at times like this that my brain begins to hurt and I look forward to the crystal clarity of Crowley's prose and concepts.

You and Kenneth may well be right, Kyle - I'm certainly not qualified to judge - but ... so what? What does it all amount to? Does it help us to develop spiritually? What does it benefit us? And given that it's all ultimately just someone's assertions, how can we ever apply the "method of science" to it?

I guess, in summary, that I'm just curious to know the answer to that question: "So what?"

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
23/08/2008 11:11 pm  

Iskandar,

Thank you for your reply. It is my understanding that a Magus does UTTER (vs. simply "identify" with) a "Word" and that Word impacts and changes the World as a Keynote to its progress. I believe it is in Liber Aleph that AC acknowledges that more than one Magus may arise in an Aeon and yet the words they utter must, of necessity, conform to the current Aeonic Word. If this is true than ABRAHADABRA had already been released into the world, as it were, and AC would have had to utter a word conforming with this formula. Instead, he killed a toad named Jesus.

The topic of the "Aeonic Word" was introduced above when Ian and I were discussing WHAT that word is. As can be seen in some of those previous posts, there are some who take it for granted that the "Word" is "Thelema." Nor do I think that is such a terrible "mistake" despite AC flatly declaring A- to be the Word.

There is a point where AC declared that he WAS Thelema Itself and this seems to be the sort of "identification" with a "Word" you are speaking of. I'm not aware of him proclaiming such an identification with ABRAHADABRA, unless we want to read his identity as "Logos" of the Aeon with that particular word.

It seems to me that the nature of ABRAHADABRA is such that it implies the "Aeon" upon whose precipice Mr. Grant says we now stand. I think the dual-nature of Horus also indicates that the hawkheaded one is not just a marker of terrestrial time but a glyph applicable to a much larger conception of the cosmos. Hence, the Prophet of the Aeon of Horus repeatedly advises his magickal son in Liber Aleph to incorporate the Tao into his path. If such "Words" were "time-sensitive" then I don't think AC would have suggested such resurrection of the old and outworn.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
23/08/2008 11:47 pm  

What does it all amount to? Does it help us to develop spiritually? What does it benefit us? And given that it's all ultimately just someone's assertions, how can we ever apply the "method of science" to it?

I guess, in summary, that I'm just curious to know the answer to that question: "So what?"

Paul-

Your question is right on the money. I've personally found this thread and some of the ideas its raised to be quite engaging. For example, Shugal-Choronzon as a formula relating to one stage in the ego's path towards Divinity. But my own symbolic and poetic predilections are not necessarily those of everyone else-nor have I ever thought they SHOULD be! I have no problem with others reading AC without a "Grantian Amplification" nor do I have a problem with anyone who is following out what we think of as "True Will" by engaging in a tradition or exploration wholly distanced from our shared "Crowleyan Language." But I DO very much respect AC, not just as a truly great magician and a fascinating personality but someone who, however perfectly or imperfectly, functioned in a prophetic role with regards to human spiritual advancement. AC well understood the pitfalls awaiting those who would follow and thus cautioned us in his wry way about a certain "Demon Crowley." I think Kenneth Grant stands as one example of a human being who, whilst immersed in this particular path, did not close the blinds to the insight bristling about him by limiting himself to a servile obeisance. And despite what some may wish to think, I see him forging his own independent way whilst maintaining the greatest respect for (and taking the maximum insight from) this truly great man.

Furthermore, OTCOT offers an encouragement to the reader to do the same. I've never felt that Grant's books were ever urging me to believe or think the way he does but rather they were a complex yet poetic expression of truly opening to the 93 Current and letting it develop itself in us without limiting our or its potential.

I'm not a religious Crowleyite-but if I'm to be honest there have been aspects of me which HAVE veered in that direction at times. It can be very compelling. Unmasking the "outer form" and having a good look down into the mechanics of what's behind the expression is not only key to penetrating Grant's complexities but assimilating the life work of Alesiter Crowley without repeating the same psychological and religious mistakes he sought to liberate humanity from.

In the time I've spent on Lashtal.com I think I've witnessed some degree of growing into this insight and Mr. Grant has been one of many whose work has pushed me towards a better and deeper understanding of what this mortal life-and its attendent spiritual Quest-is about.

I don't think that I'm "right" with arguing a point about symbolism or numbers or structures and patterns which might help map out experience. But I would hope that in using some of those things, the continuing development of understanding might be communicated.

This is what I think Mr. Kenneth Grant wished to offer his readership. The ever widening spiral of those "AHA!" moments which isn't about intellectual conquest but living life at the most ecstatic and optimum level, wherever we might be on our Path.

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
24/08/2008 1:00 am  

Nice answer, Kyle.

Thank you.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/08/2008 4:54 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
It's at times like this that [...] I look forward to the crystal clarity of Crowley's prose and concepts.

You noticed that, too, Paul? 😀


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/08/2008 3:17 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
On a note actually on-topic, Starfire is now mailing the Deluxe editions of this book. I got the E-mail this A.M.

Come on, Walter: do try to keep up: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=29648#29648

Unfortunately, I have received no email regarding the shipments of the deluxes having been initiated. Hope this is just an oversight! Copy 56 is supposed to be headed my way.....


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/08/2008 6:17 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
It's at times like this that [...] I look forward to the crystal clarity of Crowley's prose and concepts.

You noticed that, too, Paul? 😀

No, seriously, Crowley had a genius for expressing abstract and complex ideas with remarkable clarity and simplicity. Grant's presumed intent is other than this. On the surface, the presentation of his ideas seems at once verbose and ill-organized, but they are apparently intended as the solve to Crowley's coagula, I think. Of what value is this? It is of little value to many, but of great value to a few. The psychology of the reader comes into play, certainly, and these are of many and varying sorts. For some, magical formulae must change almost constantly, for the sheer sake of change, as does the whimsy of fashion. For others, more serious, the deliberate goal is a state of perpetual 'openendedness' that Crowley, by virtue of his nature, would have been dissatisfied with, as would most of his serious readers; most, but not all. Those that find Grant helpful to the accomplishment of their Wills should certainly pursue his works, that much is obvious, by virtue of our Law.


ReplyQuote
Page 7 / 8
Share: