Notifications
Clear all

Now really!  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 8:52 am  

Alrah: You have created this thread in an attempt to justify some bizarre and ungracious comments made by you on another -- now locked -- thread

Justify? I don't need to justify a god damn thing.

Now you've called my one line throwaway comment about KG - spitefull, ungracious, bizarre, etc etc. What a fuss. An absolute storm in a teacup.

Let's have a look at that one liner, eh? Has Kenneth Grant in any way, shape or form attempted to publically answer his detractors or the allegations against him in the last 40 years? Yes or No? No - he leaves that stuff to Michael.

That's the polite way of saying exactly the same thing as I did on the other thread - only I called a spade a spade instead of an agricultural implement. There's nothing bizarre about either comment - and they happen to be the truth.

Your affiliation to the Typhonian order appears to currently compromise your ability to effectively moderate a Thelemic forum in an unbiased manner, when it's anything that is Typhonian related. I'm hoping you recover your balance and perspective eventually. Now...

and your remark about "any type of negative comment" needs to be understood in that light. Your "fundamental disrespect" about LAShTAL.COM is your own affair, but please don't expect the site to promote that view.

No - the MESS thread ought to be understood in a wider context. It was presented in a wider context. The fact that you equate the specific events of yesterday with a thread about modern prudery just means you see a connection there. And if there is a connection there, it's not one I invented.

Ha. People here go on about the nightside of the tree, and all sorts of daft idea's, and yet - when a real occult subject comes up - the things we deny exist in ourselves as individuals and in groups, the matters that challenge our affiliations and our self image - people don't want to look. It's silently agreed by everyone that to draw attention to the occult in each other is to be 'rude' according to the standard of society. The occult threatens the ego.

Now - why do you feel we can't discuss that on Lashtal.com Paul? Does it have to be cleaned up, wrapped in cotton wool and made safe before you'll allow yourself to see it? The occult threatens the ego without exception to any individual unless they have crossed the Abyss.

It's funny to see so stark a reminder that the map is not the territory. Do people expect an investigation into the occult to be comfortable and on their own terms?

I haven't fundementally disrespected Lashtal.com. I revealed my natural disrespect for Kenneth Grants apparent timidity. You're not Kenneth Grant and this isn't the Kenneth Grant society. It's only your personal bias towards Typhonian matters, and Michael's sensitivity in particular, that is causing you to you err. Let's not confuse Lashtal.com with the Typhonian order eh?

Locked.

I did enjoy the quote from The Vindication of Nietzsche, though… ("The", not "A", by the way.)

I'd hang it on your wall, next to your computer if I were you.


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 10:39 am  

Who art thou that dost float and fly and dive and soar in the inane? Behold, these many aeons have passed; whence camest thou?Whither wilt thou go?
And laughing I chid him, saying:No whence!No whither!
The swan being silent, he answered: Then, if with no goal, why this eternal journey?
And I laid my head against the Head of the Swan, and laughed, saying:Is there not weariness and impatience for who would attain to some goal?
And the Swan was ever silent. Ah! but we floated in the infinite Abyss. Joy! Joy!
White swan, bear thou ever me up between thy wings!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 10:53 am  

And I walked for 40 days in the wilderness, and after 40 days I left the desert and a crowd greeted me with a hail of stones and pebbles at my body for I had been changed and I was not one of them and they feared me. And I said to them "Oh magickal beings - look at what you have made!" - for even their smallest pebble had been made into manna and bread, and it was to me, a feast.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 11:04 am  

Here me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
🙂


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
25/04/2010 11:05 am  

Alrah: Just for the record, I am not in any way associated with or "affiliated" to the Typhonian Order.

To state otherwise and in so doing to accuse me of partiality and personal bias is dishonest and misses the whole point of LAShTAL.COM: it's also clearly intended as a personal insult.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 11:07 am  

Greetings

Well Alrah, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Yet, I am really sorry to read all this…

I don’t think that AC can be undermined by the discussion any other’s work and I still don’t see the reason for someone to launch an offensive when everyone here is given the opportunity for a civilized discussion.

If there are more threads in the Typhonian section, it’s probably because people who like KG’s work are more willing to share their views. I am still new to AC’s society but I never felt that LAShTAL is anyone’s recruiting field” as you suggested in the babble-on box. However, I often wonder why certain AC’s fans become so defensive at times.

Now, if you wish to promote Erwin’s thought platform as a separate current within Thelema, it’s another thing and I’m the last one who would be able to discuss about it. However I believe that, in this case, there should have been a critical mass of people fond of Erwin’s ideas first and I have the impression that there is nothing close to that at the moment.

As for your comments about Paul, I simply feel the need to say (once again):
“Thank you for everything Paul; you do a great job for Aleister Crowley’s society!”

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 11:26 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
Alrah: Just for the record, I am not in any way associated with or "affiliated" to the Typhonian Order.

To state otherwise and in so doing to accuse me of partiality and personal bias is dishonest and misses the whole point of LAShTAL.COM: it's also clearly intended as a personal insult.

The motivations behind the decisions people make are different to the reasons they believe they have made those decisions.

You're not a robot and I don't believe you escape that rule. Not yet...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 11:35 am  

“Thank you for everything Paul; you do a great job for Aleister Crowley’s society!”

Ditto.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1264
25/04/2010 12:15 pm  

alrah, you have more than made yourself heard, so would you now mind giving it a rest?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 12:16 pm  

Alrah, darling, your allegations to Paul are hysterical : I always used to think he was a member of the Caliphate, and that the forums were weighted in favour of that angle, based on his censorial reaction whenever I espoused my personal views and experiences and observations about them (which I think people should be allowed to do, btw, but whatever...).

Did you miss the recent praise he heaped on ianrons' recent parodic and hostile "review" of one of Mr. Grant's most celebrated books? He's a good chum of the former moderator ianrons, who is about as hostile to Grant as it is inhumanly possible to be, with the possible exception of yourself.

The Typhonian sub-categories were created only very recently, and really belatedly imho - Austin Spare, who had and who has far less to do with Thelema and Crowley than Grant, had his own forums on the ALEISTER CROWLEY Society a LOT earlier! And, what's more, he's dead! Is it the Austin Spare Society? No! But you know, he's sort of interesting and related in a different way than some pipsqueaks might have the bean to grasp.

Paul's a Typhonian? LaShTal is a recruiting ground for the Typhonian Order?! LOL!

It is the Aleister Crowley Society, as you say, not the Kenneth Grant Society. However, Kenneth Grant, to date, has made a substantial contribution to not just re-hashing and re-editing and re-presenting and re-packaging and commentating on Crowley's work, but in pursuing a particular (and extensive) line of investigation into Thelemic magic and its relation to a wide range of other material, in an effort to broaden it and continue its process of growth.

At present, out of the dozens of forums here, there are just three in the Typhonian section, with 18, 4, and 8 topics in them.

Lose the paranoia, honey, and honestly, if you don't like something, just go to something you do like, or talk about something you do like to talk about. You don't need to parade your ignorance, and insolence, for the whole world to see.

Yours forever,
Noctifer


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 12:40 pm  

Actually, on a related note, I'd like to make a quiet and entirely negligible suggestion, in all due humility, as an independant (ie. non-affiliated) individual, and suggest that the title of the "Typhonian" forums be changed to "Kenneth Grant", just like the Austin Spare forum. Because if you understand why the term "Typhonian" exists, it's tautological to a certain extent. The "Typhonian" forums are there for discussion of Grant's material and work deriving from it.

But to distinguish "Typhonian" as somehow distinct from "Thelema" in general strikes me as indicating that a misunderstanding has occurred in interpreting either term - read Crowley's notes to Reguli, for example, and the other places where Shaitan/Set/Typhon is identified with Aiwaz; elsewhere, where Thelema is identified as His cult, and many other similar and related expressions of congruent terms.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
25/04/2010 1:05 pm  

This thread makes sense only when considered in the context of Babble-On (Chat Box) comments made at around the same time by alrah.

MichaelStaley noted, in respect of this thread that: "alrah, your allegation that Paul is affiliated to the Typhonian Order is untrue" and that "your allegation that he is biased towards the Typhonian Order is also untrue."

Alrah responded with a series of accusations of bias and partiality (typos corrected here):

"Paul's affiliation is quite clear - even if not formal. Anyone can see that."

"By not declaring his affiliation formally - he helps your order by maintaining appearances."

"Lashtal is your recruiting ground. Everyone can see that too. The A.: A.: people certainly do."

"You might as well call this place the Crowley and Grant society. It would be more accurate and honest."

"But the Americans assume that all English people are Typhonians."

"Michael - the forums are weighted in the direction of Typhonian threads. To suggest otherwise is... well, you know what it is!"

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 1:37 pm  

93

I'm curious about the A.:A.: people part since I belong to the A.:A.: and have always enjoyed coming here. Paul has always come across as, while a fan of Kenneth Grant and works of the Typhonian Order, fair in his attitude towards all orders. I've never seen him take any group's "side". I think it shows something of his character that he's been able to do that and be relatively unbiased while running a fairly large discussion board about Aleister Crowley.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 2:15 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
" ... Americans assume that all English people are Typhonians "

All of them ?!

Can't wait to see the new passports!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 3:29 pm  

The fact of the matter is, that I made a one line throw away criticism about Grant, and that was enough to cause a reaction that was completely disproportionate. None of you are willing to confront the reasons for that over-reaction. Untill you do, you're merely dabbling in Thelema and the occult.

Paul - close down my account. Reason: There's a proliferation of the herd mentality found on these forums, and I don't intend to waste any more of my time on slaves.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
25/04/2010 3:46 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
Did you miss the recent praise he heaped on ianrons' recent parodic and hostile "review" of one of Mr. Grant's most celebrated books? He's a good chum of the former moderator ianrons, who is about as hostile to Grant as it is inhumanly possible to be, with the possible exception of yourself.

This is all twisted in various ways to suit your own bias, old boy. The way you flap about that octogenarian reprobate is really quite nauseating, never allowing even a single critical review of his work to go without making ad hominem remarks about the reviewer. You couldn't come up with anything actually wrong with the review – factually speaking, that is – but you still seem to think the mere act of criticism of Grant, however well justified, is a sign of hostility in a reviewer rather than reflective of Grant's faults. You, and the others associated with his cult, are as brainwashed and dull as those of any other cult, like the Moonies or Jim Jones' crew.

Now, as for Paul's supposed bias, I don't think he is biased but I do think Grant's followers have deliberately congregated here and have impacted significantly and in a negative way on the quality of discussion about Aleister Crowley. e.g., there has been practically nothing on AC's espionage work since Spence published his book a couple of years ago (the most important work on the subject of Crowley for quite some time), but there have been vast and long discussions on the second editions of books that Grant wrote 30 years ago, and which have very little to do with AC at all (at least, not sanely). It's clear that there is a significant bias towards Grant in this forum because all of Grant's followers (all 20 of them, it seems) have chosen to hang out here: you lot really need to "get a room", as they say. But I don't think alrah's recent posts have helped any.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
25/04/2010 3:50 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
. . . e.g., there has been practically nothing on AC's espionage work since Spence published his book a couple of years ago (the most important work on the subject of Crowley for quite some time). . .

It might be that there is little interest in it.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
25/04/2010 3:55 pm  

I know you aren't interested in it, and neither are Grant's other followers, of whom you are the cheerleader. You lot occupy the forums yet you have almost nothing of value to say on the subject of Crowley. "Little interest" in Crowley's espionage work – obviously a major part of his life and personality? Little interest in Crowley, it seems...


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
25/04/2010 5:07 pm  

Look, I have pretty dim view of Grant myself, and of some other luminaries in the Crowley world. But this is a forum that obviously has some connection with Grant, yet at the same time has kindly offered for several years a platform in which people from different "traditions" can get together and discuss matters Crowley-related in a civil atmosphere, restraining themselves from getting too much into the usual to-and-fro.

Surely whatever "tradition" we come from we have enough self-control to be able to manage that? Surely that's a "tradition" that in itself is worth sustaining?

Crowley's words (IIRC): "tolerance produces suavity, and suavity in turn relieves the strain on tolerance". There's a time and place for bitchin' about the other yahoos who don't "get it" - that is, on one's own private forums that one has had the gumption to set up oneself. Otherwise, respect for private property ought to be the default position. Crowley may have shat on peoples' living room floors, but we are under no obligation to imitate him.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
25/04/2010 5:31 pm  

Hmmm, maybe Crowley deserved Grant? 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 5:35 pm  


Dear Heart,

"ianrons" wrote:
You couldn't come up with anything actually wrong with the review

In fact, I came up with some really salient points about what was wrong with the review, according to at least one observer, who mentioned it in the same thread.

– but you still seem to think the mere act of criticism of Grant, however well justified, is a sign of hostility in a reviewer rather than reflective of Grant's faults.

I adore criticism of Grant's writing (as opposed to of the man, of which I can be no judge as I have not had his acquaintance), in fact, when it is done from a position of comprehension (ie. one which demonstrates to me, the reader, that the reviewer actually has a clue about his subject and is not just a pretentious, aggressive, pompous wanker who is unable to contribute anything creatively himself beyond sarcasm and insults). Your review didn't convince me of this. Sorry, you should be marking high school Latin exams or something, not reviewing Kenneth Grant books.

You just don't like being reviewed yourself. Well, Ian, it's what grown-up writers have to deal with, as even you may one day learn.

In fact, I am just as critical of Grant's works, myself, as I am of Crowley's -- and that is quite a bit. The poetry, for example. Not my thing. There's all sorts of things which can be said. Back when I first moved on to his work in the mid-nineties, I used to be critical nearly to the point of hostility, ( though not quite, that would be insane! it's just a book!). It seemed absurd. I studied it (all the trilogies that had been published, up to OCOT I think, but for some reason I remember Mauve Zone as well, maybe I looked at it later) for about a year and then gave the books back to their source and forgot about them for nearly ten years, moving on to other things. When I absent-mindedly came across a copy of one of them and bought it for ten pounds as a bit of a joke, you know, something amusing to read in English on an extended foreign jaunt, the insights and indeed experiences which it opened up for me promptly have, quite simply, rocked my world in ways which I hadn't a clue even were there to begin with.

So, you see, Ian, I really don't give a flying fuck what you, alrah, Erwin, or any other nasty, twitchy illiterate obsessive type has to say about what Mr. Grant has written, because it works for me just fine! 🙂

You, and the others associated with his cult,

I'm not associated in any way with Grant's cult, or with any other cult for that matter. I just dig his books! Is this okay!?! The only cult I'm interested in, to be perfectly frank, is my own. 🙂 Not that I have one... That's why I am interested in Thelema - and it's also why I'm particularly interested in Kenneth Grant's writings, because what he essentially puts forward is, for me, a really interesting, organic and vitalistic growing of the tradition, an application and extension of it, similarly to the ways in which Crowley applied and extended the Golden Dawn tradition. I'll let you know when I launch it (my cult) so you can apply for membership if you like. You seem a bit lost at the moment...

Now, as for Paul's supposed bias, I don't think he is biased but I do think Grant's followers have deliberately congregated here and have impacted significantly and in a negative way on the quality of discussion about Aleister Crowley.

The only "followers" of Grant (I don't follow him, I just find his books really worthwhile!! Is this okay with you!? No? Tough!) - if by "follow" you mean "are able to find value in his work" - would be myself, Michael Staley, kidneyhawk, N.O.X., and perhaps a handful of others - I haven't really noticed them but then I'm not looking for them either.

Perhaps, if you see lots of Grant-valuers around the place, what it means is that lots of Grant-valuers are really into Aleister Crowley, understandably enough - LaShTal.com is the biggest forum for discussing his work. Grant has written about Crowley's work longer than you or I have drawn breath, so it is logical we'd be discussing his writing here in addition to Crowley's, as well as many other wonderful authors like Bertiaux, Spare, Levi, and the rest.

You really seem to come across as though you feel threatened or something by the simple fact that we're talking about something you don't like. Instead of polluting Paul's site with hate-speech ( "octogenarian reprobate", you big clever lad you!), why don't you enthuse about something you like - you know, something positive and worthwhile?

You hate Grant, you now appear to also hate Crowley as well, and you also appear to hate anyone who likes either of these men, and quite possibly yourself as well for once liking Crowley, so your real motivation for posting here on the Aleister Crowley Society forums is a bit of a mystery to me.

Why not join another club, one where you have something to talk about with the other members? You could even start a new one with alrah!

e.g., there has been practically nothing on AC's espionage work since Spence published his book a couple of years ago (the most important work on the subject of Crowley for quite some time),

There - perfect! Have you started the new thread about this yet? No? Still complaining about how popular Kenneth Grant's books are?

You'll have to pick soon, because time is a-wasting - do you have anything to say, or just opinions on what others have to say?

but there have been vast and long discussions on the second editions of books that Grant wrote 30 years ago, and which have very little to do with AC at all (at least, not sanely).

Yeah, awesome, isn't it? It just shows how influential and interesting they are, doesn't it? As for the "sane" part - I'll leave that judgement in your qualified hands.

It's clear that there is a significant bias towards Grant in this forum because all of Grant's followers (all 20 of them, it seems) have chosen to hang out here: you lot really need to "get a room", as they say.

Hang on, that makes absolutely no sense.

Firstly, a "bias" can only exist if there is a judgement taking place, and if it is unfairly weighed in one direction by the judge. This isn't a court, so there can be no bias. It is a web forum.

It's a site about Crowley and his work, and it's a requisite for Grant-readers to be fully Crowley-literate (to say the very least) before his work will open up (not that it does so for all, evidently). So of COURSE a lot of Grant-readers will gather here, because they're all into Crowley too.

If there were bias, in favour of Grant, your idiotic, illiterate, peurile and frankly spastic (imho) review of Outside the Circles of Time wouldn't be still up there and with the webmaster and owner condoning it!

Hardly any of the recent discussions have been about Grant or his writings at all - - - there's a thread about a new edition of The Magical Revival, which, whether you like it or not, is one of the most important and influential books ever written about Crowley and Thelema, and one of the first ever written from a sympathetic point of view, by a magically literate author. Then there are a couple of totally irrelevant remarks by alrah where, in a thread about a book NOT BY GRANT, she decided to do what you do and for no apparent reason simply begin insulting Kenneth Grant!! (for all the same reasons, from what I see, that you do). And that's about it.

I'd hardly call that a bias - - - but then, I don't view the universe as a big nasty paranoid courtroom with enemies under every chair, either.

And you know - it really is a shame we're wasting so much time on this - I'd much rather be sharing Crowley-related insights and experiences with others, of the sort that Shiva (for example, one of many) has been indulging us all with lately.

I know it's corny, but here it is anyway, because, well, I'm biased I guess:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
Love is the law, love under will

N.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
25/04/2010 6:17 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
In fact, I came up with some really salient points about what was wrong with the review, according to at least one observer, who mentioned it in the same thread.

Really? Here were your central points:

"Noctifer" wrote:
Please defend the life and writings of Aleister Crowley with absolute rationality, from all possible criticism, in 400 words or less. [...] Failure to mount such a successful defence will consitute an admission on your part that to attack Grant's work [...] is not only hypocritical, but pointlessly aggressive and unpleasant. Or -more importantly- it will constitute an admission that such a defence on the part of either man and their work is simply irrelevant.
"Noctifer" wrote:
Are you a Caliphate member?
"Noctifer" wrote:
Thelema (as a natural law, a current, a particular type of energy) is, in fact, 'bigger' than Crowley
"Noctifer" wrote:
I am simply saying this (read carefully and slowly): that you can very easily 'criticise' Crowley (his writings, his work, his life) in very many cases in an identical way that you have chosen to 'criticise' Grant in this review.
"Noctifer" wrote:
I don't say that one can't attack Grant. I say that one can (and okay, maybe even should) attack all those people's work in an identical manner, but that such an attack is completely irrelevant to the value of their work.

However, what really characterized your responses was the vitriol: the same as the venom and hatred that oozes from your posts here. All in all, it can be summed up as: "How are you attack Grant? Why can't you attack someone else? You must be a very bad man. Nothing you can say about Grant will ever stop me loving him. I hate you, you [insert profanity here]."

It's all quite irrational and cultish. And now you accuse me of "polluting Paul's site with hate-speech" by calling Grant an "octogenarian reprobate"? I may dislike Grant's work, but I see him as a figure of fun and not as a hate figure; although his followers seem pretty weird... and seriously, your responses would be improved by a sense of perspective, or humour, or something. I'm not going to indulge you if you can't control your anger. Grow up.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 6:25 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Hmmm, maybe Crowley deserved Grant? 😉

Cute, Ian, but yes, Crowley is directly responsible for the ideas at the core of the Grantian leanings, as one or two facets of Crowley's worldview concerned themselves with such pursuits. Other facets contradicted such leanings, as with his 'method of science,' hence a sort of balance - a troublesome one at times for certain Crowley admirers, who pick and choose what is most important to them personally and defiantly reject the rest of the Crowley-package. Thus, we must contend with "this is really Crowley" and "no, this alone is Crowley."


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
25/04/2010 6:26 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
I know you aren't interested in it, and neither are Grant's other followers, of whom you are the cheerleader. You lot occupy the forums yet you have almost nothing of value to say on the subject of Crowley. "Little interest" in Crowley's espionage work – obviously a major part of his life and personality? Little interest in Crowley, it seems...

My interest in Crowley is as deep and as passionate as my interest in Grant; in my opinion that's apparent to all but the voluntarily blind. My primary concern is with the magical and mystical work, and I have little interest in whether or not he was the prototypical James Bond, nor in his mountaineering exploits, nor in his chess-playing. Clearly these are matters which interest some, but as it happens not me.

Not that I need to justify my presence on these boards to you.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
25/04/2010 6:29 pm  

Camlion,

"Camlion" wrote:
Crowley is directly responsible for the ideas at the core of the Grantian leanings

I think Grant (and his followers) would agree with you, but I would say that a misinterpretation of Crowley is directly responsible for Grant's leanings. Crowley sought the divine in everything, especially the undivine, whereas Grant just seeks the undivine.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
25/04/2010 6:42 pm  

Michael,

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I have little interest in whether or not he was the prototypical James Bond

He wasn't a prototypical James Bond. However, I would suggest that study of this area is actually vital for a proper understanding of the man, and of his ideas about magick. The fact that you were until recently a bigwig in a club calling itself "OTO" after the one founded by a spy and later penetrated by Crowley partly (if not entirely) for political/espionage reasons isn't important to you? Do you not think it matters whether or not AC was simply pretending to go along with all that shebang? Don't you want to know if, maybe, the joke's on you? You also manage to completely overlook all the -- ahem! -- misrememberings of your present guru, Grant. Ignorance is bliss...

Maybe the bigger problem here is that people do prefer to speculate about how many angels Crowley believed could dance on the point of a pin, and other "magical" matters, rather than actually look at the man himself. It might actually be that a proper understanding of him provides solutions to all the questions about his "magick". An unexamined life is not worth creating a Society for...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
25/04/2010 6:56 pm  

I suppose this is not outside the bounds of possibility. However, the depth and profundity of Crowley's magical and mystical works makes it extremely unlikely, in my opinion, that he was merely feigning an interest in magic and mysticism as a cover for his espionage activities.

Your opinion that I jolly well ought to be interested is noted, of course.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/04/2010 7:16 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Crowley is directly responsible for the ideas at the core of the Grantian leanings

I think Grant (and his followers) would agree with you, but I would say that a misinterpretation of Crowley is directly responsible for Grant's leanings. Crowley sought the divine in everything, especially the undivine, whereas Grant just seeks the undivine.

"Divine," "undivine," very silly nonsense. "There is no grace, there is no guilt..."

I'll give you two Crowlean triggers for Grant, although I would have thought these would be obvious:

1) Crowley's otherwise rational commentaries on the nature of the HGA, coupled with his identification of his own HGA with the author of Liber AL and his attribution of that authorship to a 'praeter-human intelligence.'

2) Crowley's exploration of uncharted territories of the Universe, even if he had to invent (or reinvent) them ('Thirty Aethers,' etc.); compared to Grant's occupation of otherwise 'vacant space' in the nonexistent sepheroth and on the backside of the tree.

To their credit, and in contrast to certain Crowlean rationalists, the Typhonians do not obsess with defiantly rejecting contradictory yet still legitimate facets of Crowley's worldview, although they may quietly ignore them. 🙂


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
25/04/2010 7:26 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Divine," "undivine," very silly nonsense.

Not at all -- these are concepts that affect our psyche just as do others that may or may not have any validity. And of course AC himself used similar terms, "accursed" (the Abyss), "spiritual enemy" (Choronzon"), "Black Lodge", and especially "Satan", which became his god in exactly the way I described.

Unfortunately I really can't make head nor tail out of the rest of your post.


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 104
25/04/2010 8:06 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Michael,

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I have little interest in whether or not he was the prototypical James Bond

He wasn't a prototypical James Bond. However, I would suggest that study of this area is actually vital for a proper understanding of the man, and of his ideas about magick. The fact that you were until recently a bigwig in a club calling itself "OTO" after the one founded by a spy and later penetrated by Crowley partly (if not entirely) for political/espionage reasons isn't important to you? Do you not think it matters whether or not AC was simply pretending to go along with all that shebang? Don't you want to know if, maybe, the joke's on you? You also manage to completely overlook all the -- ahem! -- misrememberings of your present guru, Grant. Ignorance is bliss...

Maybe the bigger problem here is that people do prefer to speculate about how many angels Crowley believed could dance on the point of a pin, and other "magical" matters, rather than actually look at the man himself. It might actually be that a proper understanding of him provides solutions to all the questions about his "magick". An unexamined life is not worth creating a Society for...

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

In fact, prototypical James Bond was Dusko Popov. He was a double agent, and he inspired Ian Fleming. It is possible that Popov was involved in escape of Eudolf Hess from Germany, but I never was able to find any information about his possible meeting or any conection with Crowley. If trere are such information I would like to read something about this. Thanx in advance if somebody know something about this.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 213
25/04/2010 8:29 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Look, I have pretty dim view of Grant myself, and of some other luminaries in the Crowley world. But this is a forum that obviously has some connection with Grant, yet at the same time has kindly offered for several years a platform in which people from different "traditions" can get together and discuss matters Crowley-related in a civil atmosphere, restraining themselves from getting too much into the usual to-and-fro.

Surely whatever "tradition" we come from we have enough self-control to be able to manage that? Surely that's a "tradition" that in itself is worth sustaining?

Crowley's words (IIRC): "tolerance produces suavity, and suavity in turn relieves the strain on tolerance". There's a time and place for bitchin' about the other yahoos who don't "get it" - that is, on one's own private forums that one has had the gumption to set up oneself. Otherwise, respect for private property ought to be the default position. Crowley may have shat on peoples' living room floors, but we are under no obligation to imitate him.

An excellent post that I agree with wholeheartedly. It seems that some on here are more interested in "winning" arguments than the study of Uncle Al, Magick or mountaineering. I am not a Typhonian and neither do I have any interest in reading Grant's work. But hey, I enjoy watching rugby union but not rugby league. I enjoy riding my motorbike but don't feel a need to dress like a power ranger or a patch and leather chaps wearing hog rider, or hang around with those that do. It's horses for courses and a bit more mutual respect and understanding would be better. But then again tis only the tinterweb and not real life, if some keyboard warriors get their rocks off then so it goes.

I do draw the line at Hurling Tressels though 8)


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
25/04/2010 8:55 pm  

Eudolf Hess ? - Rudolf Hess, you mean.


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 104
25/04/2010 9:06 pm  
"alysa" wrote:
Eudolf Hess ? - Rudolf Hess, you mean.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Yes, I apologise for the typo.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/04/2010 7:02 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
Crowley sought the divine in everything, especially the undivine, whereas Grant just seeks the undivine.

How strange. That's not how his work strikes me at all. Read Outer Gateways for example. His terminology is a bit more advanced than the binary model of the spiritual universe proposed above, but it's about as "divine" a piece of communication as anything I've found. I can't see him seeking anything else for the entire book, in fact.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
26/04/2010 7:04 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
I know you aren't interested in it, and neither are Grant's other followers, of whom you are the cheerleader. You lot occupy the forums yet you have almost nothing of value to say on the subject of Crowley. "Little interest" in Crowley's espionage work – obviously a major part of his life and personality? Little interest in Crowley, it seems...

... maybe I have not paid enough attention to the Typhonian forum, as I only realised within the last 6 months that this has become a hot subject for some of the members here. I realise that Michael publishes his books; but as an outsider & someone who is interested in but not read Grant, I am suprised that the attention has suddenly turned into an 'issue' for a few. After reading Ian's excellently written review, I now understand more about the fundamental concepts.- Now I get what the songwriter in 'Morbid Angel' was going on about. I enjoy HP Lovecraft, to a point, so I look forward to reading a few Grant books. It seems like a fairly simple transaction to me. Although, of course, Ian's review & subsequent comments have offended some. Yet, it is not as if any comments in this forum are likely to turn anyone off from either AC or Grant;- so, everyone here wins just for being so goddamn enthusiastic.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/04/2010 7:15 am  

Tolerance is the opposite of bias.

(...I think !)


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
26/04/2010 1:59 pm  

It's only fair to give Alrah the last word on the thread she started: http://www.paganspace.net/profiles/blogs/now-let-it-be-first-understood

And, with that, this thread is now Locked.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Share: