The Practice of the Magical Diary  

Page 1 / 5
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2009 11:28 am  

I'm after reviews or opinions on whether this would be a good book to pick up and add to my Crowley knowledge bank. Is it an actual diary of sorts or more heavily into ritual instruction?


Quote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1779
24/01/2009 3:16 pm  

Starman-

If you're refering to the Wasserman volume published by Weiser, it is, IMO, just brilliant. It comprises 2 diaries (a two week diary by AC: "John St. John" and Achad's diary with notes by Crowley). It also has a very good (no, excellent!) introduction and essay unto itself by J. Wasserman as well as some added extras (like the list of food items in the back, translated for those of us who don't have the same eating experiences as our English Friend! Also, some basic A.A. material, ritual etc).

Taken as a whole, it is a wonderful, delightful and inspiring work...I wish I had it in hardcover! I revisit it often and always take away new insight, most especially from AC's entries in "John St. John." It also is a fantastic portrait of Crowley painted by himself: his power, his weaknesses, his ever present and razor-sharp humor and his real desire to not only be about the business of his own Attainment but to make the same a gift to his fellow man...

So, unless you've got the two diaries already in other tomes and feel that you are a master of diary work, get the book! The payback will be enormous!

Cheers!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5305
24/01/2009 4:26 pm  

Very well said, kidneyhawk. I agree totally with your description of this extraordinarily useful edition of the material.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2009 5:53 pm  

It should be noted that the 2006ev edition contains an interesting Forward by J. Daniel Gunther, one time Marcelo Motta A.Β·.A.Β·. student who is listed elsewhere as "V." within various Imprimatur pages such as the centennial edition of Liber AL.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/02/2009 4:53 am  

Hi all,

I bought the book so thank you for the advice. I've been reading it and have come across a couple points that I'm confused about and pardon my ignorance and lack of knowledge.

In the prologue to John St John, Crowley mentions how October seems to be significant month for him and lists the points. One of them is.."received the mysteries of L.I.L in October (19)". Now wasn't L.I.L received in April?

Later on he speaks about "torturing" and "blood sacrifice", is this Crowley's dark sense of humour coming out? Or is the "blood" an important part of the ritual?

My apologies again on my ignorance but hopefully your replies will enlighten me on these topics.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/02/2009 6:46 pm  
"Starman" wrote:
Later on he speaks about "torturing" and "blood sacrifice", is this Crowley's dark sense of humour coming out? Or is the "blood" an important part of the ritual?

See Liber Pyramidos which is the self-initiation ritual described by Crowley in John St. John. It's not that bad, though I guess it's up to you to decide what you actually do in the "the Scource, the Dagger, and the Chain" parts. As Crowley mentions in the diary, it's kind of hard to scourge oneself while wearing a robe. πŸ˜‰

In any case, it is quite apparent that almost all the references to torturing, scourging and blood sacrifice refer to either self-sacrifice or the hardships one encounters during one's Path.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/02/2009 6:49 pm  
"anpi" wrote:
As Crowley mentions in the diary, it's kind of hard to scourge oneself while wearing a robe. ;).

Oh, and I forgot, while wearing a blindfold and with your arms tied.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/02/2009 8:28 pm  
"Starman" wrote:
One of them is.."received the mysteries of L.I.L in October (19)". Now wasn't L.I.L received in April?

You're thinking of L.L. (Liber Legis), which was received in April. The reference here is to the final vision in the Vision and the Voice, which is the aethyr called LIL.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/07/2009 8:34 am  
"gmugmble" wrote:
"Starman" wrote:
One of them is.."received the mysteries of L.I.L in October (19)". Now wasn't L.I.L received in April?

You're thinking of L.L. (Liber Legis), which was received in April. The reference here is to the final vision in the Vision and the Voice, which is the aethyr called LIL.

I don't have a copy on me right now, but, besides an Aethyr, L.I.L. was also the "Lamp of the Invisible Light" which was an "Order" (actually it was just Crowley and some fella named Don Jesus) founded by Crowley while he was visiting Mexico. The purpose was to have an "ever-burning" Lamp in a temple where daily Invocations were to take place with the idea of making the light itself the consecrated center of "spiritual energy". He may be refering to this when he speaks of having "recieved the mysteries of L.I.L."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/07/2009 8:38 am  

Oh, I forgot to mention that you may find information on the Lamp of the Invisible Light on Page 203 of "Confessions".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/07/2009 8:52 pm  

Another secret of LIL are the initials LPD, which Gunther explains in his excellent "Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey". The letters LPD are the very foundation upon which the pyramid of initiation is based!

As to the book in question, I just got a copy and I love it. Wasserman's editorial etc. is excellent & it is great to read of his experiences with his journals. While I am not a big fan of his recent political work, he has a knack for discussing practical application of magickal practices etc.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 5:21 am  

Yea, great book. I've already read it three times, and the L.'.P.'.D.'. section is one of the better pieces. I'm not seeing any of his journal entires though, are they just thrown in there or do you have a special version?


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 462
09/07/2009 4:42 pm  
"uranus" wrote:
Another secret of LIL are the initials LPD, which Gunther explains in his excellent "Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey".

I would not recommend this book if my life depended on it. LPD is probably the only original thing in that book.

Wasserman's essay introducing the book mentioned above, I thought, was far better in quality content and especially in writing style.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/07/2009 4:13 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
"uranus" wrote:
Another secret of LIL are the initials LPD, which Gunther explains in his excellent "Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey".

I would not recommend this book if my life depended on it. LPD is probably the only original thing in that book.

Wasserman's essay introducing the book mentioned above, I thought, was far better in quality content and especially in writing style.

IAO131

And that is why it is called an opinion. Criticizing it for a "lack of originality" is either an admission of "I don't understand it therefore I don't like it" or missing the point which isn't "originality" but further exploration & development of the system of the A.'.A.'. as envisioned & developed by ALeister Crowley and G.C. Jones. He represents Orthodox Thelema in the same ways that Motta represented the conservative side & Grant the experimental & exotic side. But this thread isn't for a discussion of Gunther, I just brought it up in reference to LIL & will not further derail this thread with inane commentary on Gunther's book & its virtues & vices.

Rifraf, there are no journal entries in it, I was simply referring to the comment on LIL & the interesting examination of LPD in Gunther's work. I also enjoyed his commentary on "Messiah".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
28/01/2010 8:08 am  

Reading "Aleister Crowley and the Practice of the Magical Diary" triggered my conversion to Thelema, so this book will probably always have a special place on my bookshelf. With this book, I finally "got it."

It was always obvious to me that Crowley was a magickal genius, but these diaries show the depth of his spiritual commitment. It is one thing to say, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"; it is another to practice Dragon asanas outside in the rain because, in the case of Frater Achad, there was no room to perform them inside the tent that his family was living in at the time.

I'm grateful that these diaries are available together for those of us coming after Crowley and Achad, and that Wasserman also includes solid advice for keeping one's own magical diary. Considering how crucial the magical diary is to any useful magickal practice, it is a topic that deserves even more attention.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
28/01/2010 9:02 am  
"Gentian" wrote:
Considering how crucial the magical diary is to any useful magickal practice

I hear this statement being made frequently, yet I fail to see how the recording of practices like asana actually helps anyone. Sure, it's a good idea to record (e.g.) visions and so on, since obviously they contain information, but quite frankly the other stuff (including what one has had for lunch) is pointless drudgery. I don't think Moses, Buddha, St. John, Abraham of Worms, San Juan de la Cruz, et al. really suffered for not having kept such diaries.

(By the way, I kept a very detailed diary for many years -- I have stacks of A4 diary books in a cupboard -- before coming to this conclusion.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
28/01/2010 9:48 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
"Gentian" wrote:
Considering how crucial the magical diary is to any useful magickal practice

I hear this statement being made frequently, yet I fail to see how the recording of practices like asana actually helps anyone. Sure, it's a good idea to record (e.g.) visions and so on, since obviously they contain information, but quite frankly the other stuff (including what one has had for lunch) is pointless drudgery. I don't think Moses, Buddha, St. John, Abraham of Worms, San Juan de la Cruz, et al. really suffered for not having kept such diaries.

(By the way, I kept a very detailed diary for many years -- I have stacks of A4 diary books in a cupboard -- before coming to this conclusion.)

93 Ya'all
Here here Ian well said.
The more people that stick rigidly to the every word that Uncle Al says, and then mimic him so slavishly The less they are of actually achieving their mission of finding their true wills.
Whilst I agree with Wassermans book, It being a good example of how to keep a diary ,
I only ever record Phenomenon and ritual, or the fact I've missed out an adoration or two, in the day concerned.
The rest is just filler recording the weather, is good if the conditions are extreme.
The same as differing moods the rest I'm afraid is just filler.
93 93/93


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
28/01/2010 10:52 am  

Yeah... I wouldn't even bother with recording rituals in detail unless one has some kind of result, shocking as that may seem! It's not "scientific" in any meaningful sense, and it's not going to convince anyone of anything.

The other reason -- that keeping a daily diary produces makes one more mindful of the practices and therefore improves them, as suggested by Ignatius Loyola before Crowley -- isn't true in my experience, and in fact it seems the reverse is true, in that one focuses on the recording rather than the practice. For improving one's concentration there are more direct methods like the old rubber band on the wrist (and I do have clear statistical evidence of that!).

I can, however, see a purpose in recording events over a longer period, such as writing up the events of the month, or the year, just as a peg on which to hang memory; but it's easy to get bogged down in detail.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
28/01/2010 2:12 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Yeah... I wouldn't even bother with recording rituals in detail unless one has some kind of result, shocking as that may seem! It's not "scientific" in any meaningful sense, and it's not going to convince anyone of anything.

I don't believe it needs to convince anyone of anything. 10,000 compelling and meticulously-kept magical diaries are unlikely to move a real die-hard skeptic about magic. But the point, really, is one's own growth, and the diary helps me with that. But, of course, do what thou wilt.

One practice that Wasserman does not bring up, but that I find to be as helpful as the handwritten diary itself, is transcribing it into the computer after six months or so. After that much time has elapsed, the diary feels as though someone else had written it, and it's easy for me to see patterns that were not obvious to me then. This also makes it searchable, which is handy, too.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 854
28/01/2010 2:51 pm  
"uranus" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
"uranus" wrote:
Another secret of LIL are the initials LPD, which Gunther explains in his excellent "Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey".

I would not recommend this book if my life depended on it. LPD is probably the only original thing in that book.

Wasserman's essay introducing the book mentioned above, I thought, was far better in quality content and especially in writing style.

IAO131

And that is why it is called an opinion. Criticizing it for a "lack of originality" is either an admission of "I don't understand it therefore I don't like it" or missing the point which isn't "originality" but further exploration & development of the system of the A.'.A.'. as envisioned & developed by ALeister Crowley and G.C. Jones. He represents Orthodox Thelema in the same ways that Motta represented the conservative side & Grant the experimental & exotic side.

But it's entirely typical of the sort of the all-too predictable knee-jerk negativist reactionism that one can expect from certain quarters in this forum. If certain people praise it, they automatically pan it. *Yawn* The very *idea* of "Thelemic Orthodoxy" is enough to send them off on tirades about Gods know what next. Pay it no mind.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
28/01/2010 3:50 pm  
"Gentian" wrote:
I don't believe it needs to convince anyone of anything. 10,000 compelling and meticulously-kept magical diaries are unlikely to move a real die-hard skeptic about magic. But the point, really, is one's own growth, and the diary helps me with that. But, of course, do what thou wilt.

Bear in mind AC wanted every A.'.A.'. recruit to write his/her diary for purposes which he said he wouldn't divulge (you'll know the quote) but also as a means towards remembering past lives (a la Thisarb) and perhaps most importantly as a basis for AC himself to criticise the student in a manner akin to psychotherapy -- without the rigour(!).

None of these reasons are satisfactory; consider that AC wrote Thisarb before he had even attempted the practices therein, so he was certainly not qualified in any sense to be criticising anyone's magickal practice; and even if you think AC was a brilliant analyst, certainly no "A.'.A.'. Neophyte" I have ever met is qualified in that regard today. It sounds good and scientific to keep a magickal diary, but in practice it doesn't really help.

"Walterfive" wrote:
But it's entirely typical of the sort of the all-too predictable knee-jerk negativist reactionism that one can expect from certain quarters in this forum. If certain people praise it, they automatically pan it. *Yawn* The very *idea* of "Thelemic Orthodoxy" is enough to send them off on tirades about Gods know what next. Pay it no mind.

Reactionism? That's a bit... reactionist. I don't think there was any suggestion of the fault you criticise in the quote you cite, and in fact you seem to be the one having a rant.

Now, if you were objecting to the knee-jerk reactionist praise of the book in question on account of well-known religious affiliations, that would be a different matter... πŸ˜‰


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 854
28/01/2010 8:36 pm  

Oh, but of course!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
28/01/2010 9:13 pm  

I don't have a diary and was never asked to keep one. A lot of correspondence, but no diary.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
28/01/2010 10:39 pm  

I think if you're concentrating on the mundane in your journal, then you're missing the point entirely. Yes, taking the time each day to sit down and recall what you did that day and put it into writing is going to help with your memory of said events but the more important thing is how do those events help you? How did they make you feel? The same goes for any ritual experience. Writing that you did such and such ritual is kind of pointless unless you put what you felt during it, if you learned anything, if anything felt like it was particularly successful or you screwed up and why you screwed up. After 6 months, a year, etc...you can go back through the journal and pick out the patterns/recurring themes going on. When such and such events are going on in your life, what dreams are you having? It's supposed to be a learning tool but if it's not being used properly then all it is is a carpal tunnel syndrome inducing regime.

extra: Gunther's book. It's "point" might not have been to be original but if it's not original, then what's the point of it? I really don't need another author to tell me the themes going on behind Crowley's writings. I can gather that by reading Crowley's writings. Not that I think Gunther's book was bad but I think he could've done more with it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
28/01/2010 11:20 pm  

So basically you're saying that a journal is a great asset to progress when you're completely honest, and no use if you're not?

That just about sums up the entire great work. Complete honesty or just forget it.

And a teacher should exemplify those qualities.

Which is why I hold Draconuit in such disrespect.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/01/2010 12:44 am  

I keep a journal. I don't handwrite it because I messed up my wrists when I was a young dumb thing, so writing even a few lines longhand causes pain and a couple of pages will make my whole hand tighten up and my wrist swell. As a writer, I praise keyboards because otherwise I could not pursue my ambitions...though as my wife has argued, eras before typewriters were also eras without skateboards, so most likely my problem would not exist.

That said, I have to say there are three reasons I think the record is important. I have kept it, off and on, since I was 11 and it has helped me do these things more than anything:

1. Track correlations between conditions and results - Especially for things like ritual drug use, but this applies to everything. You could find that (as I have) after a certain operation a chronic problem (in my case sleep disorders) was apparently cured. You could find that there exists a correlation between doing your practice at a certain time and the quality of your results. You may find that things you thought were working for you actually weren't when you track them over time, or vice versa, you could find that the "useless" or "dogmatic" practice you dreaded and had such misgivings about caused a shift or change in your overall results. Once I noticed that I was getting two specific physical sensations during asana; they differed completely in both sense involved (one was sight, the other touch) and the mental attitudes brought about by each were completely different. However, my journal allowed me to notice they both always occurred after practicing asana for the same fraction of my practice, no matter how long my practice was...at the 3/4 point. This resulted in an analysis of what was happening in my practice, what my mental and emotional processes were, and so on, which led me to various insights into how to improve my practice.

2. By tracking thoughts and attitudes at given times, one can track how thoughts, personality, and opinions are changing far more accurately than depending on memory - Memory is reconstructive...it doesn't "load", it rebuilds from its elements. This, neurologically, can present a chance to change the memory by reinterpreting it, which we do, all the time. Thus we can find ourselves saying we never believed something or always believed something, but when we are confronted by our own recorded thoughts we have to take responsibility for what we say and do. Thus we are both better able to plot the function of our Work and its results and we are able to recognize the essential transience of our individual states of being; rather than viewing ourselves as our perceptions lead us to (ongoing timeless snapshots or narratives built from current attitudes) the practice leads us to viewing ourselves as a function,a set of properties changing over time, which then leads to a better knowledge of ourselves. This practice also induces humility and fights arrogance...once you have seen yourself "have the answer" and excitedly record it roughly 50 times, only to realize a while later that you were wrong and instead THIS, THIS TIME, you have the REAL answer, do you realize the truth: there isn't a permanent "answer" to any of it. The answers are, like your own existence, elements of a function, and then change over time and say more about you than the objects of interest. We are all about 1.5-3 months from being a moron, and the journal makes us aware of this fact (again and again).

3. It creates integrity - You see what you did, what you said, what you thought. You see where you were wrong, unjust, unkind, or cruel. You see where you made commitments. You see where you overreacted. You can see where you failed or succeeded, and often even form hypotheses as to why. You see yourself, and are forced to take responsibility for it.

Just my thoughts.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/01/2010 3:40 am  

I advocate and recommend keeping a magical diary. A lot can be learned from it . The magical memory is something important to develop particularly as one attempts to hang on to the 'continuity of consciousness' through the passage of death. Diaries, journals, correspondence, photos, any kind of record helps with that. By magical memory, I'm referring to a conscious recollection of one's entire life, as much as possible, as well as any past lives that may have surfaced. I also like Wasserman's book.

In science, most experiments are actually 'failures' in that they don't get the desired results. However, it's through careful recorded observation of these 'failures' that eventually lead to successful ones. Still, there's no need to record irrelevant details in one's diary.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
29/01/2010 5:39 am  

Hi thePuck,

Some good points you make, and welcome to LAShTAL.com.

With regard to the things said in point (1), what you are describing is observation and self-awareness, which is for the most part independent of a written record. In other words, I think that in the cases you cite (such as the sleep disorder and asana work, etc.), one wouldn't need to display any prodigious feats of memory in order to link cause and effect. However, if something odd is happening (such as with the asana practice) then of course having pen and paper to do some rough working is no bad thing. What this sort of thing provides is a kind of feedback loop, in the same way that friends, internet forums and EEG machines can be, but there's a law of diminishing returns with all those things.

Re: point (2), you strike a chord there when you note how silly one's ramblings and speculations can appear on re-reading a few months later. I am not sure this is a good argument for keeping a diary! The problem is that it's an open-ended and completely self-involved (if not self-indulgent) practice. One might argue that writing a blog or autobiographical fiction for public consumption is actually more productive and beneficial, then at least if no-one reads it you know it's a waste of time. Partly my attitude towards diaries is because of the realisation of the uselessness of materialising one's transient views, after many years of doing so. That sort of work is much better done inside one's own head, and in fact writing it down prevents in many cases trains of thought from developing, and prevents one dropping bad ideas sooner. Added to which, there are often much better outlets for any truly interesting ideas than a personal diary.

With point (3), I don't agree that a diary "creates integrity". In fact, I think diaries don't change one's personality at all -- magickal practices can and do, by changing one's brain seemingly quite directly; but the idea that one's instinctual reactions to people and events are affected by the transitory emotions generated whilst reading over a diary is a little far-fetched. Working on one's tendencies is much harder than that. I think it's also worth bearing in mind that a record of events in a diary is, actually, a superficial thing in a few words which in no way replaces memory, but is just a peg for it and a means to recall it later, in the same way that a wedding photo would tell a stranger practically nothing about the social interactions going on. So, in order to feel (say) elation at one's actions at a certain point in the past, one is almost certain to have felt that emotion at the time; and therefore it's hard to tell what one is gaining a second time around. "Integrity" (whatever that is), like any other trait, comes either from nature or from layers of emotional memory based on life experience, not from experience of reading diary entries; though, like looking through old photos or taking a bath, it can be a rewarding experience.

Ian


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/01/2010 5:41 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
Bear in mind AC wanted every A.'.A.'. recruit to write his/her diary for purposes which he said he wouldn't divulge (you'll know the quote) but also as a means towards remembering past lives (a la Thisarb) and perhaps most importantly as a basis for AC himself to criticise the student in a manner akin to psychotherapy -- without the rigour(!).

I actually don't know that particular quote, but all of that sounds awfully cultish to me, from my 2010 perspective anyway.

But when did our societal views about appropriate boundaries for a teacher/student relationship really form? For instance, even psychotherapy operated by different rules then, and was rife with behaviors between doctor and patient that we would view as intrusive or barbaric today.

And what is the line between psychological analysis and criticism of someone's spiritual/magickal development? The two are not the same thing, obviously, but if someone is psychologically immature, I believe that could block them from magical advancement in any number of ways.

None of these reasons are satisfactory; consider that AC wrote Thisarb before he had even attempted the practices therein, so he was certainly not qualified in any sense to be criticising anyone's magickal practice; and even if you think AC was a brilliant analyst, certainly no "A.'.A.'. Neophyte" I have ever met is qualified in that regard today. It sounds good and scientific to keep a magickal diary, but in practice it doesn't really help.

I haven't participated in the A:.A:. course myself, but I agree that there seems to be an inherent danger in letting someone else read your diary and guide your magical work. Whether this danger is greater than the risk of self-delusion that can come from solitary study, I cannot say.

My understanding is that Crowley did try Thisharb eventually, though I don't know if he asked students to work with it before he tried it himself. I happen to have been dabbling in Thisharb myself recently and I find the method very awkward.

I personally find the diary so helpful that I can no longer imagine my practice without it. But to each his own, of course.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
29/01/2010 6:24 am  

Hi Gentian,

"Gentian" wrote:
I actually don't know that particular quote, but all of that sounds awfully cultish to me, from my 2010 perspective anyway.

It's from Liber E vel Exercitiorum sub figurΓ’ IX, point I, which I quote in full (from hermetic.com):

"Crowley" wrote:
1. It is absolutely necessary that all experiments should be recorded in detail during, or immediately after, their performance.
2. It is highly important to note the physical and mental condition of the experimenter or experimenters.
3. The time and place of all experiments must be noted; also the state of the weather, and generally all conditions which might conceivably have any result upon the experiment either as adjuvants to or causes of the result, or as inhibiting it, or as sources of error.
4. The A? A? will not take official notice of any experiments which are not thus properly recorded.
5. It is not necessary at this stage for us to declare fully the ultimate end of our researches; nor indeed would it be understood by those who have not become proficient in these elementary courses.
6. The experimenter is encouraged to use his own intelligence, and not to rely upon any other person or persons, however distinguished, even among ourselves.
7. The written record should be intelligently (WEH NOTE: EQUINOX I, 1 has "intelligibly".) prepared so that others may benefit from its study.
8. The Book John St. John published in the first number of the "Equinox" is an example of this kind of record by a very advanced student. It is not as simply written as we could wish, but will show the method.
9. The more scientific the record is, the better. Yet the emotions should be noted, as being some of the conditions.
Let then the record be written with sincerity and care; thus with practice it will be found more and more to approximate to the ideal.

Some of it's pretty funny today, a bit like Crowley's ignorant attempt at Siddhasana in the next section and his extremely dubious views on asana generally.

"Gentian" wrote:
But when did our societal views about appropriate boundaries for a teacher/student relationship really form? For instance, even psychotherapy operated by different rules then, and was rife with behaviors between doctor and patient that we would view as intrusive or barbaric today.

And what is the line between psychological analysis and criticism of someone's spiritual/magickal development? The two are not the same thing, obviously, but if someone is psychologically immature, I believe that could block them from magical advancement in any number of ways.

When I referred to it as "psychotherapy -- without the rigour(!)", I was taking a swipe at psychotherapy too, which has today become so discredited that Freud, Jung, etc., are taboo on serious psychology courses. There's a parallel with Crowley's A.'.A.'., and certainly both can be viewed as pseudo-scientific pursuits (largely unfalsifiable supposition based on anecdotes), but more particularly in the case of A.'.A.'. there are sinister overtones because of the very bizarre authoritarian relationship established between people in A.'.A.'. which in my opinion hampers any kind of spiritual growth, and which has been and still is a cover for all sorts of psychological and physical abuse (besides other things). The A.'.A.'. (like the Golden Dawn before it) was not designed to serve the spiritual needs of its aspirants, in the same way that an army is not designed to serve the wellbeing of its soldiers.

"Gentian" wrote:
My understanding is that Crowley did try Thisharb eventually, though I don't know if he asked students to work with it before he tried it himself. I happen to have been dabbling in Thisharb myself recently and I find the method very awkward.

My understanding is that AC did Thisarb in 1919-20, but published the method taught him by Bennett in Eqx. I:7 (Spring 1912). I haven't seen that particular diary though, but the information came from a very reliable source.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/01/2010 7:14 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
When I referred to it as "psychotherapy -- without the rigour(!)", I was taking a swipe at psychotherapy too, which has today become so discredited that Freud, Jung, etc., are taboo on serious psychology courses. There's a parallel with Crowley's A.'.A.'., and certainly both can be viewed as pseudo-scientific pursuits (largely unfalsifiable supposition based on anecdotes), but more particularly in the case of A.'.A.'. there are sinister overtones because of the very bizarre authoritarian relationship established between people in A.'.A.'. which in my opinion hampers any kind of spiritual growth, and which has been and still is a cover for all sorts of psychological and physical abuse (besides other things). I can tell you quite plainly that A.'.A.'. (and the Golden Dawn before it) was not designed to serve the spiritual needs of its aspirants, in the same way that an army is not designed to serve the wellbeing of its soldiers.

Your experience in the AA obviously seems to have left a bad taste in your mouth but just because some people have a "very bizarre authoritarian relationship" doesn't mean the AA as a whole it flawed. You speak in very generally sweeping statements that are not what everyone experiences in the the AA. There are some important reasons for an AA instructor to read the magical diary of their students. Number one is that there is a person who has already climbed before you and so when they see you reach a state, start to blossom somewhere, they can prod the development of that blossoming. They can help kindle that fire. The other is looking out for pitfalls. There is nothing "hampering" at all in the student/teacher relationship. The AA is a way to seek guidance and if you don't want it then fine, don't be a part of the AA.

Although I see the point behind your analogy between the AA and an army, I think it's rather poor. The point of the AA is a spiritual brotherhood working towards the development of mankind, it's "focus" not being on the individual, but it does this by developing individuals. It's the same thing as with an army...yeah, the point is to fight wars and not the "well being of the soldiers" but an effective army does have soldiers who are well taken care of.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
29/01/2010 7:59 am  
"kuniggety" wrote:
Your experience in the AA obviously seems to have left a bad taste in your mouth but just because some people have a "very bizarre authoritarian relationship" doesn't mean the AA as a whole it flawed.

It's not really about taste, but you're right to say that my comments so far don't prove that the A.'.A.'. system is flawed. But let's examine it. Essentially, the A.'.A.'. system makes everyone (beyond Probationer) a kind of teacher, when in fact there are very few people who (in practice) are capable of taking on that kind of role – much less than 100%! Added to which, if you separate the pupil from the moderating influence of anyone else in the group and give the teacher the absolute right to order them about the place, that's a recipe for trouble.

"kuniggety" wrote:
You speak in very generally sweeping statements that are not what everyone experiences in the the AA.

No, I don't think so. But in any case, I don't think giving you personal examples would be very helpful here, although I suppose I might. There are of course several different groups working that system, none of which I regard as having any particular authority and none of which seem to have had any notable successes, but some are doubtless better than others. You should probably be quite dubious of anyone claiming to have contact with "Secret Chiefs" generally, but don't let me spoil it for you...*

"kuniggety" wrote:
There are some important reasons for an AA instructor to read the magical diary of their students. Number one is that there is a person who has already climbed before you and so when they see you reach a state, start to blossom somewhere, they can prod the development of that blossoming.

It may seem like a good idea, but even in context it doesn't work – a Probationer can choose any practices he likes, and the Neophyte may have no experience of them whatsoever. You'd actually be better off asking a magician friend whom you respect to read over your diary for you (or work things out for yourself), rather than be assigned a random bloke by some other bloke you don't know, who may or may not be crazy. We could be organising this sort of thing better online, these days, rather than leaving aspirants to the mercy of secretive cults – you're relying on the reputation of the people running it, and the quality of their latest Neophyte, but in fact there is no way to judge that from the outside (they each have varying reputations depending on who you talk to), and in practice I have known many people besides myself who have found these groups somewhat lacking. Take a look around this forum and (no offence to anyone reading this topic!) you'll get the basic idea of the sorts of people who join these groups: i.e., they aren't necessarily spiritual giants, and just because they join an A.'.A.'. group doesn't suddenly make them great teachers.

"kuniggety" wrote:
There is nothing "hampering" at all in the student/teacher relationship.

Well, this is a matter of opinion. If you ever happen to experience someone who proudly displays Nazi memorabilia shouting at you for several minutes and literally frothing at the mouth because you don't want to sleep with his girlfriend, you probably won't go back there again; and if the leader of another group actually says to you that he's a "Black Brother", you might start to get bored of the whole idea of "A.'.A.'." as a great spiritual order; but far be it from me to suggest people who claim to be holy might not be...

"kuniggety" wrote:
The AA is a way to seek guidance and if you don't want it then fine, don't be a part of the AA.

This isn't about my relationship with any group using the name "A.'.A.'." – it's not a personal matter as far as I'm concerned.

As regards this discussion as a whole, I am of course aware that if you're a member of an A.'.A.'. group then (as part of your Oath) you will be unable to criticise them -- "reverence, duty... trust" etc.


* They might be secret Jacobites!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/01/2010 8:35 am  

I don't want to quote bit by bit but in general, here is my response:

1. I agree, not everyone is teacher material. Especially at the Neophyte level, not everyone is teacher material. I think this was a mistake on Crowley's part. I think the idea is that if the Neophyte doesn't know about something then he should be asking the Zelator above him and so on up. In reality, we all know that there are people who like to talk out their ass and not profess up to the fact that they don't know. I know some of the AA lineages out there approach this various ways, requiring a degree of schooling even before becoming a Probationer and/or not placing people in roles as a teacher until they've spent a longer degree of time in the order (ie reaching Practicus or even higher) and have shown themself a degree of competency.

2. Secret Chiefs - I guess it would be how you define it. It you mean some foreign German Soror, then yeah, dubious. If in having reaching a degree of connectivity of consciousness/with humanity characterized as one who has "crossed the abyss" then sure, I'm down with that. I think some of the lineages' claims are definitely more spurious/dubious than others.

3. Crazy people. They exist, unfortunately. Luckily there are some people out there in teaching positions that aren't crazy. I have read horror stories in various lineages out there and so I am fully aware it exists but that's when hopefully the student has some common sense and knows when to get the hell out of there.

4.

"kuniggety" wrote:
The AA is a way to seek guidance and if you don't want it then fine, don't be a part of the AA.

This was actually in general, not directed at you ianrons. I apologize for ambiguity.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
29/01/2010 8:48 am  

Yeah, I'd agree with that pretty much. Re: (1), yes there are differing ways of dealing with the odd hierarchical system, but really I think the whole G.D.-style traversal of the tree (which nevertheless has some parallels in Rabbinical Kabbalah) is ill-conceived, in particular the concept of "crossing the Abyss" (a reflection of the ascetic purgations of Christianity and the "Puritan idea" that it has to hurt to do you good) and other things like preventing a person's progress if they're no good at one particular sephirotic task (which AC invented out of spite it seems). I don't have any better ideas at the moment though...


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1779
30/01/2010 2:11 am  

I think the whole G.D.-style traversal of the tree (which nevertheless has some parallels in Rabbinical Kabbalah) is ill-conceived, in particular the concept of "crossing the Abyss" (a reflection of the ascetic purgations of Christianity and the "Puritan idea" that it has to hurt to do you good) and other things like preventing a person's progress if they're no good at one particular sephirotic task

Ian-

I agree with your view on this but think A.C. also understood this. In One Star In Sight, he writes:

"It should be stated that these Grades are not necessarily attained fully, and in strict consecution, or manifested wholly on all planes. This subject is very difficult, and entirely beyond the limits of this small treatise."

I don't agree with Crowley that this "subject is very difficult" but then again I'm living in an age very different from his own. If any "Thelemic" Order or School is to be really progressive and move with the Current, it has to take this into account; there are new and unprecedented ways of approaching the Mysteries as dealt with by our historic predecessors.

One example of this is Kenneth Grant, especially in his examination of modern artists (Dali, Tanguy, Ernst etc) as magicians whose aesthetic has superceded the ceremonial of adherents to now outdated systems (see Outside The Circles Of Time).

We have to ask: what is the schematic? What is its goal? How can we realize this for ourselves?

Crowley offers a LOT in this regard. Perhaps more so than organizational spin-offs of his genius which would enforce "adherence" over emulation. Not that Crowley didn't invest in such an "organizational vision." He did. It was called O.T.O. and A.A.

But you know...New Wine and Old Wineskins.

"The Times They Are A Changin'..."


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1779
30/01/2010 2:43 am  

I will respectfully disagree with some of the sentiments expressed above re: The Magickal Diary. It IS important and, in some ways, is the only way to get at the substance of the Work at hand. I also understand dispensing with the Diary and just "doing it." I once read a comment concerning Crowley; that he was so focused on his writing that he could never just "let go" and enter the Enlightenment. Even as he was experiencing it, he was "writing it." But this is part of his Will as a Writer. It's how he went about things. And, despite how we might perceive his faults, he did this as a Bodhisattva, for the sake of all "Sentient Beings." If anything, this shows us how the Bodhisaatva is not without faults or shortcomings.

How we "do things" will hopefully reflect our Will and not our "Systemic Affiliations."

One Life To Live and it's up to us to live it WELL!

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 652
30/01/2010 3:06 am  

Bodhisatva is not without faults or shortcomings - Good to know.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
30/01/2010 7:28 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I agree with your view on this

Is this a first? πŸ˜‰

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
but think A.C. also understood this. In One Star In Sight, he writes:

"It should be stated that these Grades are not necessarily attained fully, and in strict consecution, or manifested wholly on all planes. This subject is very difficult, and entirely beyond the limits of this small treatise."

I don't think this suggests that AC thought, as I do, that using the Tree of Life as a grade system is ill conceived, and in fact it's completely clear in Crowley's writings that his view of G.D. Qabalah was very orthodox, and that he regarded it as representative of observed facts, as demonstrated specifically by the way he criticised Achad's attempted revisions.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
there are new and unprecedented ways of approaching the Mysteries as dealt with by our historic predecessors [...] One example of this is Kenneth Grant, especially in his examination of modern artists (Dali, Tanguy, Ernst etc) as magicians whose aesthetic has superceded [sic] the ceremonial of adherents to now outdated systems (see Outside The Circles Of Time).

I wondered how long before Grant would get a mention! There is a theme in Outside the Circles of Time of Grant having superseded, surpassed or otherwise improved upon (esp.) Crowley's work, but also Western Qabalah and so on. However, I look upon Grant's suggested alterations to the Qabalah, e.g. adding the false sephirah Daath to the tree, in the same way that I would a supposed mathematician if he suggested adding a new number to the integers between 3 and 4.

With regard to your belief that there are "new and unprecedented ways of approaching the Mysteries", there may be an increase in symbols but that's not the same thing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/01/2010 6:15 pm  

Hummmm, this is a really interesting chat. I cant wait to see where this goes-or ends up. Hopfully not locked, haha-ah, yeah. πŸ˜‰

Wish we were having this in a pub!

Is this a first?

Not even close. Does this suprise you? πŸ˜‰


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
30/01/2010 6:38 pm  
"adonia444" wrote:
Hummmm, this is a really interesting chat. I cant wait to see where this goes-or ends up. Hopfully not locked, haha-ah, yeah. πŸ˜‰

Wish we were having this in a pub!

Is this a first?

Not even close. Does this suprise you? πŸ˜‰

I was just waiting for you to explain the mysteries of 3 1/2 to me... πŸ˜›


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/01/2010 6:42 pm  

LOL. Oh wait for it.... He's been typing a reply to you for the last 45 minutes-should be a doozey! πŸ˜‰ I know not of the mysteries of, well anything Ian. I cant figure out my new coffee pot so I'm afraid i'm not the one. xx


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1779
30/01/2010 6:42 pm  

Ian-

I'll start at the end of your post.

there may an increase in symbols but that's not the same thing.

This is a good observation and we do see lots of the same old thing repackaged with new "symbols." This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can help us get at the underlying thing being symbolized from a variety of angles and thereby see and experience it without the constraint of certain exclusive symbol sets.

You are right with regards to AC hacving a more "Orthodox" view and use of the Qabalah. I think that small statement I cited above indicates that Crowley did, in fact, see how there is a plasticity or organic quality to how the human being can (and perhaps, MUST) operate in regards to such a system. In the end, I see it as something that should be helpful to the seeker-and not something that cramps and contains the Will.

Kenneth Grant does "extend" Crowley's work into new exploratory territory. His treatment of the Qabalah (from his use of Gematria to his material on Daath and the Double Tree model) exemplifies the sort of work with the Crowleyan Qabalistic system as material to apply, both creatively and practically. There is more to his work, however, than this. He indicates many ways of extending consciousness and attaining to Initiatory states which are in no way reliant on a person being embroiled within any sort of standardized occult grade system. Thus, he frequently looks at various artists as having tapped into their own means of development and contact with the forces we might find "symbolized" in the Qabala. Spare was one such artist. He gave the A.A. (and Crowley) a whirl, decided that it was bunk and spat upon ceremonial magic, developing and using his own means to generate results (and the artwork which also serves as a type of "travelogue" into those realms). Grant gives equal credence to those who have gone the way of Spare in tackling "Life in the Current."

There is a wonderful passage in Grant's Against The Light where he is told that Thelema Itself is the biggest "blind" of them all. It is part of a visionary experience in which all of the forms of this sort of "Magic" are unraveling into an experience of the energies and forces they were meant to express. Yapping about a Greek word that we profess is the best spiritual truth for the species is just that-spewing out language. Thelema is another symbol. We may stand at the Fountainhead of the Current and come away with another name, another set of symbols and ideas and perhaps forms more suited to how we work this out in our own lives, more efficient "magickal machines," if you will. Of course, we need a space which isn't binding us to the cross of standardized initiatory schemes to realize this. This is a challenge to any organized effort at cooperative group work or effective ways of teaching and developing a student's potential. Some people will thrive in a college environment; others will feel stifled and are better suited to be autodidacticts. One phrase that was tossed around a bit when I was in school and studying art was "Learn the rules before you break them." I think this also applies to the theme at hand. A newbie may find remarkable benefit in working with a Qabalistic primer and pre-fab rituals. They may ultimately find this "background" the foundation of radically creative approaches which tear up what has gone before. Think about the artistic evolution of Picasso as applied to occult initiatory development.

I would not describe the Tree of Life as an "ill-conceived" initiatory structure. It can be a remarkable machine and very helpful. But it's meant to be just that: a method, a way-and not shackles when our real life, needs and Will indicate something outside of its limits.

Personally, although I am a deep admirer of Crolwey and Grant, I don't give too much focus to the Tree of Life these days. I've found methods of Vudu, dreaming and artwork to be much better suited to my purposes. I'm more interested in the dynamics of how these things are "working" than arriving at any state of "Qabalistic Correctness." I also can see this as harmonious with my self-understanding as a "Thelemite." But there's no need to goose-step to what someone else has decided is the best way for me. "One Law for the Lion and the Ox is oppression," yeah?

The same applies to how we utilze our record-keeping, diaries and what we choose to take note of.

Is this a first?

LOL! I doubt it. And I also doubt it'll be the last. πŸ™‚

94,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1779
30/01/2010 6:44 pm  

explain the mysteries of 3 1/2 to me...

Let's just call it Fire Snake. 😈


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 211
30/01/2010 6:58 pm  

93,

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I will respectfully disagree with some of the sentiments expressed above re: The Magickal Diary. It IS important and, in some ways, is the only way to get at the substance of the Work at hand.

Greetings Kidneyhawk! I'm happy to see you make this statement here. Personally, I can't think of anything more important than the writing of a Magickal Diary, as the the New Aeon unfolds. And as A.C. wrote in Liber E, "the more scientific it is, the better". Cheers!

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/01/2010 8:01 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:

With regard to your belief that there are "new and unprecedented ways of
approaching the Mysteries", there may be an increase in symbols but that's
not the same thing.

Two new ways that I know of since Crowley's time:

1) the discovery and proliferation of LSD which enabled a muchmorescientific precision to the use of 'strange drugs.' Not that it was always
used wisely. And I am not advocating it, not at all.

2) the invention by Dr. John Lilly of the sensory deprivation tank also known
as the floatation tank. It's an excellent device for going ex stasis. But
even for those not mystically inclined, it's an ideal environment for
postulating/considering/formulating one's Will.

Another unprecedented way of approaching the mysteries is through
practical application of some of the theories of quantum physics especially the theory of parallel worlds, though it could be argued that this new model is just a different set of symbols.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
31/01/2010 6:16 am  

zardoz,

"zardoz" wrote:
Two new ways that I know of since Crowley's time:

The human body and mind are still the same, so in the broader sense (the spirit in which my comment was made) there are no new ways of approaching the mysteries; however, re: LSD and sensory deprivation, there are plenty of previous examples of entheogenic drugs and also numerous techniques of sensory deprivation (ranging from ascetic practices of mortification to more direct parallels like the "witches' cradle").

But to go back to the broader point, my attitude is that of the mathematician rather than the poet: that is, I would like to describe the universe in the simplest and most inclusive fashion, rather than in as many ill-defined (or "poetic") ways as possible.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
31/01/2010 6:19 am  

Kyle,

You're a charming fellow, but your posts are generally quite lengthy disquisitions in support of Kenneth Grant, no matter what the topic. So without wishing to cause offence, I should tell you that I really have no interest in the subject of Kenneth Grant.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1779
31/01/2010 7:11 am  

So without wishing to cause offence, I should tell you that I really have no interest in the subject of Kenneth Grant

None taken, Ian. The topic here began with discussion of the Magical Diary, an item of great emphasis in Crowley's teachings. Both the value of this and the Tree, as an initiatory framework, have brought into question. I was simply expressing my own perspective on this, with reference to several figures who have had an influence on my thinking.

You wrote:

my attitude is that of the mathematician rather than the poet: that is, I would like to describe the universe in the simplest and most inclusive fashion, rather than in as many ill-defined (or "poetic") ways as possible.

I think this is an interesting statement. I have tried in several past posts to express that my own stance is by no means "Anti-Reason" but sees reason as one of many factors involved in our overall approach to life. It has its place. So does the poetic and "irrational." Obviously, if I was in the emergency room, with severe pain in my chest, I wouldn't want to see a "poet" come through the curtains.

But we are speaking here of the ideas of "attainment" and the practice of what we call "Magick." I don't know about you, but there are "stop-points" in the Great Work where I have to pause, question and assess. Things look different the further on down the line we go. Of course, we are all bound for the "same grave." So, with that in mind, I wish to ask: what, precisely, do you hope to find in your goal of "describing"

the universe in the simplest and most inclusive fashion, rather than in as many ill-defined (or "poetic") ways as possible.

I'm not speaking in terms of the practical use of "science" and mathematics but in terms of the goals and aims of "Magick."

I would also suggest that one of the reasons AC was so uniquely suited to his task was because of his ability to fuse the same desire you describe with his poetic and imaginative powers.

So, I have to ask, what do you think The Great Work really IS? You get to be born, enter the fray of your personal grappling with life and you get to die. I can truly appreciate your inclinations as a "math man" and have no need to "win you over" to the "other side." But what are you shooting for as a Magician? This is an important point and it has bearing on the value of the diary AC was so insistent that we all keep.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
31/01/2010 3:51 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
I would like to describe the universe

I wish to ask: what, precisely, do you hope to find in your goal of "describing"

The universe πŸ™‚

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
So, I have to ask, what do you think The Great Work really IS?

Well, it isn't sitting around defining vague terms on internet forums.

πŸ˜›


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
31/01/2010 4:32 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
I would like to describe the universe

I wish to ask: what, precisely, do you hope to find in your goal of "describing"

The universe πŸ™‚

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
So, I have to ask, what do you think The Great Work really IS?

Well, it isn't sitting around defining vague terms on internet forums.

πŸ˜›

Lol. Yeah - knowledge of good and correct terminology is rather an indicator of ego attachment than proper use of the abilities and talents that the words are meant to define. Thelema is choking on it!

Yoga and all forms of the esoteric arts - students should be taught them without any reference to the narrative forms that the narrative ego can latch onto and reference/possess to itself. This isn't hard, but it just can't be reproduced over the internet. It has to be taught (experiencially) and without the intellectual ego reassurance some men are attached to in 6th form and later university.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 5
Share: