Notifications
Clear all

Typhonian Order: 2 questions  

Page 3 / 5
  RSS

kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
10/02/2010 6:09 am  

Crowley's attempt at codifying a religious doctrine is not his strong suit, IMO, Thiebes. I appreciate what Patriarch is saying...he is not debating the point, but simply looking for a documented statement. Zardoz is emphatically after the point implied in the citation re: the A.A.

The declaration "Do What Thou Wilt" is NOT unique to AC. From the ancient "KNOW THYSELF" to Shakespeare's "To Thine Own Self Be True" to Joseph Campbells' "Follow Your Bliss," this is an IMPULSE inherent in the human being. Before and after Crowley. You don't need a Star Ruby or OTO or the "Holy Books of Thelema" to get at this. If anything, Crowley detracts from the simplicity and method of "Discovering your Will" by entangling it his elaborate system.

"Thelema?" It's a WORD. Which expresses an IDEA. Other Words and other Forms express the same Idea. An Idea we find resurgent within the human being both before and after Crowley.

"Rub out the word," as Bill Burroughs advises, and see what's LEFT.

As this thread originated with an inquiry into the Typhonian Order, I will again refer to Grant's brilliant novel, Against The Light.

"Thelema," said Uncle Phil, "is a blind if ever there was one!"

Does the Truth flow from the pen of Aleister Crowley? Or did Crowley's pen serve to give a singular expression of the Truth?

And let me ask you THIS: do you think that your own heart will ever carry closer to the Truth than a deference to Crowley's authority will?


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 165
10/02/2010 6:48 am  

Thelema is a word, yes, which expresses an idea, yes, for which there are other expressions, yes. But those other expressions are not Thelema. Exactly for the reasoning that you explain above. You can have many fingers pointing at the moon, sure, but this does not then imply they are all the same finger.

The point is that Joseph Campbell and Shakespeare and Nietzsche and Rabelais and Augustine of Hippo and Buckminster Fuller may all have had a similar idea and some even used the word Thelema, but the Law of Thelema as Crowley means it when he defines Thelemite in his commentary, is that expression - that Word of Truth (not Truth itself, but the Word of Truth) which issues from Liber AL vel Legis.

Deference to Crowley's authority? His authority tells me to do my will. Why would anyone want to divorce Thelema from AC's interpretation of it?

My heart carry closer to the Truth? I AM the Truth.

Attempts to revise the Law open the door to "the clever and the crafty to distort the true meaning of Aiwass so as to suit their own conceits." I consider this idea of calling anyone who we suppose accomplished their will or expressed similar ideas a "Thelemite" to be such a conceited distortion. Nothing personal.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 6:58 am  

Their can be no room for authority when "Their is no Law beyond Do What Thou Wilt"!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 9:49 am  
"stevensteven" wrote:
"I am Thelema"
- Aleister Crowley Oct 22, 1920

No, I am Thelema! ❗


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 526
10/02/2010 3:06 pm  

. . I doubt if some of you have even read Rabelais. You can find the historic precedent for the entire 'Thelema' philosophy in 'Gargantua & PANtagruel'. This may have been his favourite book. Go & actually read the authors some of you reference without any understanding. AC aligned himself with a 'tradition'.~~~ Or would you rather play his game, & lose? -if so, you will never be more than his little monkey.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 4:22 pm  

It would seem to me that we might be talking theory versus application.

For instance, you can call me whatever you like. It's your will. Call me a Jew if you will, for I read hebrew, study the Kabbalah, the Torah, etc. You can call me not a Jew if you will as well. For it matters not in the long run what YOU call ME.

It only matters what I feel about myself and how I label myself.

As far as any label goes then, I can only identify myself with things I am aware of. For how can I call myself something if I have no knowledge of it?

Can I still behave as such? Sure I can.

Can I follow its dictates and rituals? I suppose, however, without knowledge of these I feel it would only be so out of sheer luck. However, I'd be prepared to go with the duck argument on this one (if it quacks like a duck, etc.).

Does that make me XXX? In theory yes, in practice I don't believe so because all that matters is how I see myself. And since I have not labeled myself as XXX, I am not XXX.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 526
10/02/2010 4:51 pm  

Who is the one laying blankets of theory here?- Everything you have said only equals your provisional estate in sociability. It is the kind of thing some learn as children; profound?- No. I would not use it as a feather in MY cap. . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 5:00 pm  

Back toward the Typhonian topic of the thread for a moment, sorry.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Camlion-

As I see it, the "Thelemic Current" is the sweeping influence of that evolutionary impulse evocative of the verity and consciousness of Will in the Human Being. It's manifestions are manifold and any "exclusivity"' on the part of Crowley (or Crowleyans) hampers the energetic potential of this force. "Typhonian Thelema" has its unique characteristics: thematic focus points such as Zos Kia, Lovecraftian language, ET contact and so on, the codified vision of Crowley extending into new arenas. A big difference between the "Crowleyan" and the "Typhonian," as I see it, is that the former would restrict all "matters of the Law" within an appeal to the Prophet's authority. Furthermore, the Typhonian pulse is not limited to sticking in the parameters of Grant's writing (even Grant welcomes and incorporates much new material as his books unfold, treating of what was then the very recent discoveries and work of Nema, M. Bertiaux, Robert Anton Wilson, members of his own Order etc).

I agree with you and admire your stance of being

more interested in the concept of true Will surviving the evolution of Thelema than I am of prophets or sacred books surviving it. I'm also very interested in a "definite, intelligible, + practical programme" evolving around that concept, one that remains relevant and valuable to as many people as possible for as long as possible, since "the law is for all."

Ritual, initiations, tantric magick, fraternal pursuits, esoteric research and so on will not be everyone's cup of tea. Nor everyone's Will. But Will IS the foundation from which we approach any of these (or seemingly unrelated) endeavors.

Hey Kyle. Thanks for the reply to my question about the relationship between Typhonian Thelema and the concept of true Will. I am glad that we share this as a common core value.

I have one more question about this bit:

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"Typhonian Thelema" has its unique characteristics: thematic focus points such as Zos Kia, Lovecraftian language, ET contact and so on, the codified vision of Crowley extending into new arenas.

Since Thelema directly concerns itself with the individual doing his or her true Will, and individuals do vary so greatly, it is perfectly natural for one Thelemite to declare "it is my true Will to engage in agriculture" and another to declare "it is my Will to engage in contact with ETs." Legitimate science has, indeed, involved itself in each of these pursuits and, really, it ain't no body's business but that of the Thelemite in question.

My question is, however, do you see the difference between the following statements?

a) "It is my true Will to engage in contact with ETs."

b) "Thelema is about contact with ETs."

It seems to me that the answers would be the same as with the following two statements:

c) "It is my true Will to engage in agriculture."

d) "Thelema is about engaging in agriculture."

Statements a) and c) seem perfectly fine to me, do what thou wilt. Statements b) and d), however, seem to be inevitably misleading, and are bound to cause confusion and conflict among Thelemites.

What do you think, Kyle?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 5:11 pm  

Probably best it remains a purely astral temple at present horemakhet, for as inscribed upon its legendary gate;

Here enter not vile bigots, hypocrites, externally devoted apes, base snites, puft up wry-necked beasts, worse than the Huns or Ostrogots, forerunners of baboons: curst snakes, dissembled varlots, seeming scants, slipshod caffards, beggers pretending wants, fat chuffcats, smell-feast knockers, doltish gulls, out-strouting cluster fists, contentious bulls, fomenters of divisions and debates, elsewhere, not here, make sale of your deceits.

And as for you kidneyhawk, using something to express a point that is drawn from a novel (oh, which is actually FICTION if you didn't know), I'd say you pretty much got what you deserved...


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 526
10/02/2010 5:24 pm  

. . I am not Kyle, but I have a response: It would seem that every living thing on our planet is a "Thelemite". No one needs anyone aside from some encouragement to do what they want to do. In this way, you would make a great teacher for children.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
10/02/2010 5:32 pm  
"stevensteven" wrote:
"I am Thelema"
- Aleister Crowley Oct 22, 1920

Coming from the Cefalu diaries, the bombast and hyperbole of the entry from which you choose these brief words may be drug induced. In any case, over the course of his lifetime, Crowley would have said all sorts of contradictory things.

No matter! Crowley said it, so it must be true!

With followers like this, who needs enemies?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 6:04 pm  

Nothing in any of Grants works has ever suggested in anyway to me that Grant and the Typhonian Order were not Thelemic.

What qualities or values in Grants writings and ideas express anything that is would suggest that it isn't Thelemic?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 6:18 pm  

In no way would I support the idea that Crowley or Liber AL should be divorced from the future application of the Law of Thelema to human race who so desperately need it. Also, I find Crowley's interpretations and elaborations on the concept of true Will to be invaluable. These are, however, certainly limited in their practical value and scope of application, simply because Crowley died in 1947 and we are living now in 2010 and, hopefully, well into the future. Further work will be required of others.

That being said, it seems clear to many who read Liber AL from a psychological perspective that the 'author' of this Book appealed to Crowley on certain levels where he was most vulnerable, in order to compel him to deliver the Message of the Book without fail, no matter the cost to him personally. These levels seem to be, in part, his personal religious history and his vanity. Liber AL literally reeks with appeals to these two levels of Crowley's make-up, and these appeals were successful; we got the Message and we will be passing it on.

I think it is wise to temper our veneration of Crowley in consideration of the above, without allowing our respect for him to be diminished thereby, of course. I also know that some Thelemites will not avail themselves of this slightly more balanced perspective, which is inevitable among the more religiously inclined or oriented people such as Crowley himself.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 329
10/02/2010 6:19 pm  

MichaelStaley Wrote: "Coming from the Cefalu diaries, the bombast and hyperbole of the entry from which you choose these brief words may be drug induced."

I don't really see what is wrong with the statement...anyone who achieves his or her true will, to such a degree (i.e. crossing the Abyss, becoming a Magus, and then Ipsissimus), is going to realize oneness with the Thelemic Current, at least on an interior level. Yet it applies not just to Crowley but to anyone who realizes such Attainments. Crowley was no better than anyone who climbs the mountain of initiation.

I can't accept the argument that drugs cloud one's doctrinal judgment. Crowley wrote some of his most profound and lucid works while heavily drug-induced, and I don't see evidence in those masterpieces of a muddled mind at all.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
10/02/2010 6:30 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
I don't really see what is wrong with the statement...anyone who achieves his or her true will, to such a degree (i.e. crossing the Abyss, becoming a Magus, and then Ipsissimus), is going to realize oneness with the Thelemic Current, at least on an interior level. Yet it applies not just to Crowley but to anyone who realizes such Attainments. Crowley was no better than anyone who climbs the mountain of initiation.
I can't accept the argument that drugs cloud one's doctrinal judgment. Crowley wrote some of his most profound and lucid works while heavily drug-induced, and I don't see evidence in those masterpieces of a muddled mind at all.

I agree that drugs do not necessarily cloud one's judgement, and that many fine creations may have resulted from them. However, this riposte from StevenSteven was intended to demonstrate that Crowley's words are to be considered final, because Crowley said so. I was merely demurring from that rather slavish view. My apologies for not expressing myself clearly.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 329
10/02/2010 6:38 pm  

I'm in full agreement with you that the view that Crowley's words are to be considered final is a slavish one.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 526
10/02/2010 6:54 pm  

Thank you Simon Iff (spurious) for that awesome quote& translation! Camlion: I too think that AC & Rose ' channeled' that book. It is certainly the most fascinating in his life. However- the whole "new aeon" dogma is something that I have problems with. That was all wish fulfillment.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 7:16 pm  

Godwin's Law:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Rons' Law:
"As an online discussion about religion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Monty Python's The Life of Brian approaches 1."

"thiebes" wrote:
Deference to Crowley's authority? His authority tells me to do my will.

"Yes, we're all individuals."


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
10/02/2010 7:19 pm  

"Yes we're all individuals.", I agree.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 7:35 pm  

Oops, forgive my muddled thinking, 'scants' was of course supposed to be 'sancts'. And a secret; I didn't really translate it 😳 (Urquart & Motteux) although my edition does carry some intriguing drawings by R.A. Brandt.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 7:45 pm  
"the_spurious_simon_iff" wrote:
And as for you kidneyhawk, using something to express a point that is drawn from a novel (oh, which is actually FICTION if you didn't know), I'd say you pretty much got what you deserved...

Hmmm... this from someone who worships at the feet of a guru who is definitely not averse to attempting to bring "FICTION", as you call it, into... erm... "REALITY".

It's like the old joke: "What does one do if Cthulhu attacks? Pulp him..."


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
10/02/2010 8:08 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Hmmm... this from someone who worships at the feet of a guru who is definitely not averse to attempting to bring "FICTION", as you call it, into... erm... "REALITY".

Irony is utterly lost on you, isn't it?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 8:11 pm  

Evidently the term "fiction" is lost on you... or why else does everyone have to point it out? Does it seem cool to follow a religion focused largely on a fictional entity or two... and then to suggest critics are unsophisticated? Jeez, get a grip...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 8:27 pm  

"it is well known that the facts of magic and mysticism have often been presented in fictional guise, although it is rarely realized that a definate body of occult doctrine lies at the heart of such literature.........since the decay of organized religion and the loss of the faculty capable of accepting natural truths, fiction has increasingly become the vehicle for conveying that spirit of wonder which is atrophying in people."

Kenneth Grant, the article titled Hidden Lore, from the Carfax Monographs. Italics my own.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
10/02/2010 8:33 pm  

Does it seem cool to follow a religion focused largely on a fictional entity or two...

Like Ra Hoor Khuit and his associates? 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 8:35 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Evidently the term "fiction" is lost on you... or why else does everyone have to point it out? Does it seem cool to follow a religion focused largely on a fictional entity or two... and then to suggest critics are unsophisticated? Jeez, get a grip...

What fictional entities are you referring to?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 8:36 pm  

It's not just that you want to accept fictional stuff as real, it's that you deliberately blur the lines, so you lot are happy to have conversations about real people (like John Dee, in the other thread) as though your irritating little head-fuck version of "reality" were in some sense conterminous with reality. Seriously, get a grip.

But oh, I wait for Pilate's "What's reality?"


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 8:37 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Like Ra Hoor Khuit and his associates? Wink

Do I follow "Ra Hoor Khuit" then, do you think?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
10/02/2010 8:42 pm  

Do I follow "Ra Hoor Khuit" then, do you think?

Do you think Mr. Staley follows "Cthulhu?" 😆


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 8:42 pm  

Hey Ian - what's reality?

http://www.entropiauniverse.com/

😉


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 8:48 pm  

Well, why don't you walk in front of a bus? Seriously, why not? I bet you don't, and that's really the end of this discussion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 8:49 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Crowley's attempt at codifying a religious doctrine is not his strong suit, IMO, Thiebes.

I have to disagree with you on this point, Kyle, IMO Crowley did an excellent job at codifying a perennial religious doctrine, maybe too good of a job. Those who don't bother to learn AC's codified language probably miss at least 60% or more of what he was communicating. He alludes to this in the previously mentioned Thelemite definition from the Djeridensis Comment:

"We who accept this Law may rightly be called Thelemites, if this word be defined in terms of its secret values, as in the case of the word Thelema itself.

This definition seems quite brilliant to me because it doesn't actually answer the question, what is a Thelemite? with a single answer, but leaves it open to individual interpretation. No external authority or psuedo-authority anywhere will definitively tell you what the secret values are.

I see a problem with taking most things AC said too literally and how that may allow dogma to get projected onto his teachings.

However, I was enlightened last night with the realization at how utterly ridiculous it is to argue about who gets to be called a Thelemite. I therefore agree to not call anyone a Thelemite unless they accept Crowley and Liber AL, even if, like some very talented people I know, their life course is aligned with their True Will. I appreciate ( but don't agree with) the sentiment to keep the Thelemite club exclusive to Crowley devotees. Maybe someone will come up with a new name for all those people who truly work to fulfill their life's purpose but don't worship at the altar of Crowley.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
As this thread originated with an inquiry into the Typhonian Order, I will again refer to Grant's brilliant novel, Against The Light.

"Thelema," said Uncle Phil, "is a blind if ever there was one!"

Seems right to me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 8:54 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
It's not just that you want to accept fictional stuff as real, it's that you deliberately blur the lines, so you lot are happy to have conversations about real people (like John Dee, in the other thread) as though your irritating little head-fuck version of "reality" were in some sense conterminous with reality. Seriously, get a grip.

But oh, I wait for Pilate's "What's reality?"

I wasn't aware that I needed to post a disclaimer "warning, Cthulu, Azathoth and the Necronomicon are fictional concepts created by the author HP Lovecraft. No historic evidence has been found that Dee ever owned a copy of the Necronomicon." Terribly sorry if I blurred anybodies lines.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 8:55 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

Do I follow "Ra Hoor Khuit" then, do you think?

Do you think Mr. Staley follows "Cthulhu?" 😆

Yes, actually. Grant defines Cthulhu as one of the Secret Chiefs. So, erm, yes...


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
10/02/2010 8:55 pm  

It's not just that you want to accept fictional stuff as real, it's that you deliberately blur the lines, so you lot are happy to have conversations about real people (like John Dee, in the other thread) as though your irritating little head-fuck version of "reality" were in some sense conterminous with reality. Seriously, get a grip.

No, Ian, I think YOU may be the one needing to "get a grip." You're clearly still carrying some chip on your shoulder about how you perceive Typhonian Magick and it tends to evoke crazy statements like

you want to accept fictional stuff as real

and then you dismiss areas you admittedly have an aesthetic distaste for as a

irritating little head-fuck version of "reality"

Perhaps you're simply irritated at the prospect of having your own head "fucked" with and thus the knee jerk reactions to thoughts and ideas which travel outside the boundaries of your own thinking processes. On a forum like this, however, I think your hostility is unwarranted and a tad embarrassing. It hardly lends to any serious exploration of the topics at hand, even as sensible critique. But if it makes you feel better, carry on... 🙄


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 8:58 pm  

Kyle/kidneyhawk,

I notice you haven't addressed the point -- any point! I wonder why.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
10/02/2010 8:59 pm  

Kyle,

I notice you haven't addressed the point. I wonder why?

Are you referring to Grant considering Cthulhu a Secret Chief?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 9:01 pm  

I'm referring to any of the points I've previously made. Pick one... or, preferably, all of them. Let's pretend like it's a discussion, where we argue ad rem, which I'm trying to do.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 9:02 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
I wasn't aware that I needed to post a disclaimer "warning, Cthulu, Azathoth and the Necronomicon are fictional concepts created by the author HP Lovecraft. No historic evidence has been found that Dee ever owned a copy of the Necronomicon."

Well consider this an earnest recommendation in that direction. It would be a fucking start... I mean, I'm not asking much. Most people consider that a given in any discussion of history. Evidently you operate in different levels of bullshit... I mean, "reality".


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 165
10/02/2010 9:10 pm  

Were the following words also "drug induced"?

"... that [the things of All-Truth] may be said it is necessary that One [Poet] take human Flesh, and become a Magus in our Holy Order. He then is called the Logos, or Logos Aionos, that is to say, he Word of the Aeon or Age, because he is verily that Word. ... For though His Words be many, yet is His Word One, One and Alone; and by this Word he createth Man anew, in an essential Form of Life, so that he is changed in his inmost Knowledge of himself."

What I consider truly "slavish" is reinterpreting Crowley to be in agreement with whatever one's personal worldview is, regardless of his actual intent which should be plain enough to anyone reading his actual words.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
10/02/2010 9:12 pm  

Let's pretend like it's a discussion, where we argue ad rem, which I'm trying to do.

Ian-you come off increasingly condescending and if you had something truly interesting-or relevant- to say about the topics you'd like to imagine yourself lam-blasting, we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Seriously, have you ever read Grant's treatment of Cthulhu in Outer Gateways, in which he utilizes Lovecraft's mythic forms to embody, via poetic expression, the obliteration of the ego through exposure to transpersonal consciousness? It's almost like a Buddhist Sutra in its wild, colorful form and transcendent content. Passages like this that illumine what may be mistakingly read as a "literalism" elsewhere. And in this case, it might also be illumining with regards to what a "Secret Chief" may be.

You seem to be hurling little rocks at something which doesn't exist, all the while, howling: "IT DOESN'T EXIST!" (and in this instance, that "something" is the erroneous picture you've got in your head of what the Typhonian Trilogies-and those who study and enjoy them-are all about. But you're not really interested in such things, are you?).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 9:13 pm  
"the_spurious_simon_iff" wrote:
And as for you kidneyhawk, using something to express a point that is drawn from a novel (oh, which is actually FICTION if you didn't know),

Shouldn't be too much of a stretch for the old noggin to see that works of fiction can contain factual information.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 9:20 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
What I consider truly "slavish" is reinterpreting Crowley to be in agreement with whatever one's personal worldview is, regardless of his actual intent which should be plain enough to anyone reading his actual words.

And you can't see that this is your interpretation based on your personal worldview? 🙄

Reinterpret Crowley? Whose interpretation is the right one?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 9:28 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
You seem to be hurling little rocks at something which doesn't exist

Merely asserting that the point of my criticism is immaterial does not strike me as a serious mode of discussion.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Seriously, have you ever read Grant's treatment of Cthulhu in Outer Gateways, in which he utilizes Lovecraft's mythic forms to embody, via poetic expression, the obliteration of the ego through exposure to transpersonal consciousness?

Gosh, thanks for inviting me to bask in wonderment at the glory of Grant's "treatment of Cthulhu". I thought I was criticising Grant for failing to distinguish between his fantasies and reality -- such as when he suggests Dee is seeking to contact Bertiaux's dark denizens of dementia -- but you seem to think this merely shows I haven't sufficiently practiced the technique of "derangement of the senses". How depressingly tedious.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
It's almost like a Buddhist Sutra in its wild, colorful form and transcendent content.

Really.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Passages like this that illumine what may be mistakingly read as a "literalism" elsewhere. And in this case, it might also be illumining with regards to what a "Secret Chief" may be.

You mean... something with tentacles for arms?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
in this instance, that "something" is the erroneous picture you've got in your head of what the Typhonian Trilogies-and those who study and enjoy them-are all about. But you're not really interested in such things, are you?).

The problem is that you lot aren't interested in truth; and if you're not interested in truth, you can't possibly be interested in magick, except as you imagine it: head-wanking.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 9:28 pm  

Sorry to interrupt, or get off topic, but I wanted to respond to the original post somewhat.

"WarriorchiefZulu" wrote:
I have taken a great interest in the Typhonian Order from what I have read about it online. My first question is does anyone have any recommended readings/books concerning this order? Secondly, I have noticed that nowhere have I found how a person joins this order. Is it a simple word of mouth membership or how does one go about joining? Thanks!

A friend of mine recently gave me a photocopied version of Grant's Key to Pyramid, which seemed like an outline of the Typhonian O.T.O.'s loose grade work and study. I'm not certain if this document is official, or if its its been published, so before I recommend anything from it, I'd like to be sure that it would be acceptable to discuss it's contetnts.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 165
10/02/2010 9:40 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
And you can't see that this is your interpretation based on your personal worldview?

Why would I think that, when my worldview had to change considerably in order to even entertain the notion?>

"zardoz" wrote:
Reinterpret Crowley? Whose interpretation is the right one?

I think Crowley's own words are much more likely a correct reflection of his intent than someone on the Intarwebs named "zardoz".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 9:53 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
And you can't see that this is your interpretation based on your personal worldview?

Why would I think that, when my worldview had to change considerably in order to even entertain the notion?>

Yes, why would you examine yourself in that way. You are the Truth, as you've stated.

"thiebes" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
Reinterpret Crowley? Whose interpretation is the right one?

I think Crowley's own words are much more likely a correct reflection of his intent than someone on the Intarwebs named "zardoz".

You didn't answer the question. All of Crowley's words are subject to interpretation. Correct? Correct according to whom?? ... the Secret Chiefs???

Generally speaking, I see Crowley's intent as being one to get people to think for themself, not mindlessly and dogmatically parrot our favorite author.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 10:41 pm  

Ian, what difference does it make if some given Thelemite's true Will involves "Secret Chiefs" or what they name them? So long as these ideas are not presented as being relevant to all Thelemites (and thus to Thelema in general), what difference does it make to you?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 10:45 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
I think Crowley's own words are much more likely a correct reflection of his intent than someone on the Intarwebs named "zardoz".

thiebes, you don't think that Crowley advocated Thelemites thinking for themselves, deciding for themselves what "seemeth right"? Are you serious?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 10:47 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Ian, what difference does it make if some given Thelemite's true Will involves "Secret Chiefs" or what they name them?

You'd only say that if you thought magick is entirely ineffective and vain to begin with. I mean, if magick were in any sense effective then surely it would matter whether or not you worshipped a world-eating monster. So, really, Grant's followers are the most cynical (besides being cowardy-custard and scuttling away), assuming -- as of course they must -- that nothing they do has any effect; because who would want to have sex with, and be eaten by, an arachnid? Even as fiction it's nauseating wank... it just depresses me that they imagine their vile nonsense has anything to do with Thelema; but everyone has their "interpretations", no matter how grindingly mundane and stupid.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 5
Share: