Notifications
Clear all

Typhonian Order: 2 questions  

Page 4 / 5
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 10:54 pm  

Well when you dress it up in such alluring and esoteric terms, who wouldn't want to have sex with AND be eaten by an arachnid? The process seems analogous to invocation...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 10:57 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
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?

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 these people imagine their vile nonsense has anything to do with Thelema.

So you think that all Thelemites must practice Magick? What if they have no natural interest or aptitude for it? Is the Law not for all, regardless of whether or not one practices Magick, your way or another way?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 11:05 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
Well when you dress it up in such alluring and esoteric terms, who wouldn't want to have sex with AND be eaten by an arachnid? The process seems analogous to invocation...

You know what one of the things I really love about Crowley is? I know he may have been a real shit to the people in his life, he may have deliberately set about to create an anti-Christian personality-cult just to rebel against authority, and he may have lied left, right and centre; but he didn't entice people to be devoured by their own fears, in fact for all his craziness his own message to the human race is: "Believe in yourself, stand up and fight!"

What saddens me is that there is a contingent of angst-ridden teenagers, people who haven't really read Crowley much at all, who hear about him through Kenneth Grant, who think it's all about "darkness, despair and death", and who appear to be too stupid to recognise how badly wrong they really are, trying to abstract everything into vapour so as to justify bowing down before their fears. I'm also disappointed in myself that I've been polite to them and their malodorous, contemptible philosophy for so long.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:06 pm  

If you think it is "vile nonsense" then why don't you leave this thread well enough alone and let the rest of us get on with it then?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 11:09 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
So you think that all Thelemites must practice Magick? What if they have no natural interest or aptitude for it? Is the Law not for all, regardless of whether or not one practices Magick, your way or another way?

What has this got to do with Kenneth Grant writing that Choronzon is the "supreme concentration" of the Secret Chiefs? Has it not occurred to you that's twisting the symbolism in what I might reasonably describe as being a very confusing manner for a young occultist? Try and justify it, then...


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 11:10 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
If you think it is "vile nonsense" then why don't you leave this thread well enough alone and let the rest of us get on with it then?

I might just as well say that if you love Kenneth Grant so much then "why don't you leave [the Aleister Crowley Society] well enough alone and let the rest of us get on with it then?" None of this really has anything to do with Aleister Crowley.

Oh wait, but isn't it also the unofficial home of the Kenneth Grant society? Roll on the Starfire website...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:14 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
If you think it is "vile nonsense" then why don't you leave this thread well enough alone and let the rest of us get on with it then?

The rest of us? Excluding Ianrons? That's would be a desire for a type of reactionary cultish in-groupism, wouldn't it? A vice of Netzach. Don't count me in with 'the rest of us'. You don't speak for me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:15 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
"AEternitas" wrote:
Well when you dress it up in such alluring and esoteric terms, who wouldn't want to have sex with AND be eaten by an arachnid? The process seems analogous to invocation...

What saddens me is that there is a contingent of angst-ridden teenagers, people who haven't really read Crowley much at all, who hear about him through Kenneth Grant, who think it's all about "darkness, despair and death", and who appear to be too stupid to recognise how badly wrong they really are, trying to abstract everything into vapour so as to justify bowing down before their fears. I'm also disappointed in myself that I've been polite to them and their malodorous, contemptible philosophy for so long.

I was familiar with the Golden Dawn well before I was Crowley, and magical practice in general. I have read quite a bit Crowley's written work and find it quite appealing. I am anything but an angst ridden teenager and I don't "think it's all about darkness, despair and death." I do not worship, nor do I bow down before my fears.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 11:23 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
I was familiar with the Golden Dawn well before I was Crowley

But if you're Crowley, then who am I?

"AEternitas" wrote:
I have read quite a bit Crowley's written work and find it quite appealing.

Well I'm glad you find Crowley at least "quite appealing". I wouldn't want to think you had merely a passing interest.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:28 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
So you think that all Thelemites must practice Magick? What if they have no natural interest or aptitude for it? Is the Law not for all, regardless of whether or not one practices Magick, your way or another way?

What has this got to do with Kenneth Grant writing that Choronzon is the "supreme concentration" of the Secret Chiefs? Has it not occurred to you that's twisting the symbolism in what I might reasonably describe as being a very confusing manner for a young occultist? Try and justify it, then...

Ian, the point is that what other people do is none of your business. Didn't you catch Crowley's lessons on minding your own business? I may have no interest in Grant's writings either, but I would not presume to lecture those who are interested in them. There are a lot of things in store of a "young occultist," including a lot of people such as yourself who want to show them the error of other peoples ways, but they are going to have to learn to think for themselves. Without a doubt, Crowley's work is foundational to Grant's. Grant was Crowley's student. People should certainly be reminded of that if it somehow has escaped them, but that is really all that can be done. Grant's work is not going to vanish, no matter how much you huff and puff.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:30 pm  

I was never suggesting any sort of in grouping, but perhaps if Grants writing and his fans aren't to your liking, why not just leave them be, after all, I don't see too many "Typhonians" shoving their views down anyone elses throats on this forum. I find that kind of blatant disrespect for the Will of others rather appalling myself.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:30 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
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

Not at all.

Your bus example presumes “what is reality?” is a denial of reality. I am not denying reality, but asking what is reality? Until an answer is provided, your fiction/reality critique of Kenneth Grant is null.

There is a subtext in this thread that KG is unrelated to Thelema or, in your case, that his work is fictional and irritating. I've heard this before and I suspect this animosity is due more to aesthetic reasons or KG's non-anthropocentric interests. Just because we don’t like something does not mean that it is non-Thelemic or fictional.

I am not trying to defend the existence of LAM or Chthulu or whatever, but asserting a point about the nature of mind and uniqueness of each person’s True Will. What one person finds interesting and enlightening may seem insane or distasteful to another. Also the structure of the Tree implies forms are created and materialize from the Supernals and the fiction/reality dualism needs to be placed in this context - "fiction" may be (provisionally) defined as what has not materialized so far.

I’ll leave you with an aphorism from Crowley:

Now then in my dear Love of thee will I reveal this Secret of Wisdom, in these Words: All Things Exist. Considered by Right Understanding, this is to deny that there is any Thing imaginable or unimaginable which doth not exist.

(Liber Aleph, On the Aphorism where I say: All Things Exist, p. 203)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:46 pm  
"tai" wrote:
Your bus example presumes “what is reality?” is a denial of reality. I am not denying reality, but asking what is reality? Until an answer is provided, your fiction/reality critique of Kenneth Grant is null.

Absolute piffle. The ability to distinguish a real bus from, say, an imaginary bus does not in any way, shape or form depend upon the degree to which you can provide a satisfactory philosophical definition of "reality". That hackneyed old "you can't prove we're not all brains in a vat so we might as well all believe in goblins" argument doesn't get any more sensible with age. Distinguishing fantasy from reality is easy, everybody does it every day, and it never depends on having a definition handy.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
10/02/2010 11:47 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Ian, the point is that what other people do is none of your business. Didn't you catch Crowley's lessons on minding your own business?

Why, then, do you think the comments that I've posted are any of your business? What you're saying, in essence, is that you don't like what I'm saying, but it comes over as a lame argument against self-expression. If Grant teaches people bullshit, and if his acolytes come here telling people bullshit, why wouldn't I respond? It's become my business by them being at the Aleister Crowley Society talking about stuff that goes completely against Crowley's philosophy.

And please don't try to find quotes from Crowley to tell me what to do... that's really not very impressive.

"Camlion" wrote:
I may have no interest in Grant's writings either, but I would not presume to lecture those who are interested in them.

Well I put it to you that if you had an opinion and weren't jelly that you would. Perhaps it would be better than presuming to lecture Thelemites about what they should and shouldn't be doing? And on that note, when have I ever said that one of Grant's followers shouldn't do all that rubbish that they do? I wouldn't, because unlike sanctimonious people I don't tell other people what to do, I merely criticise (and then ridicule, if necessary) those who do things I think are foolish (e.g., the current silly government we have over here; or are you going to tell me that's none of my business either?).

"Camlion" wrote:
There are a lot of things in store of a "young occultist," including a lot of people such as yourself who want to show them the error of other peoples ways, but they are going to have to learn to think for themselves. Without a doubt, Crowley's work is foundational to Grant's. Grant was Crowley's student. People should certainly be reminded of that if it somehow has escaped them, but that is really all that can be done. Grant's work is not going to vanish, no matter how much you huff and puff.

I'm really interested to hear exactly at what point it is that Grant's followers and his apologists really just stop caring about things like "truth" and "beauty" and go for "well, it really doesn't matter" and "nameless blasphemies". You're confused if you think, as you seem to, that I'm trying to teach anyone anything here -- I'm not. I'm simply not bothering to sit in the corner being polite when people start talking utter drivel as though it were on the same level as Dee, Crowley or any even vaguely sane magicians who tried to find the truth rather than want to stick their nose in the dirt all day long.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:53 pm  

Have you ever read At The Feet of the Guru, or the Book of S'lbah? There have been times when, reading Crowley I felt I had been wading in shit all day long and couldn't see even the vaguest connection to anything even remotely close to what could be called "truth"


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
11/02/2010 12:00 am  
"AEternitas" wrote:
Have you ever read At The Feet of the Guru, or the Book of S'lbah? There have been times when, reading Crowley I felt I had been wading in shit all day long and couldn't see even the vaguest connection to anything even remotely close to what could be called "truth"

I seem to recall skimming through At the Feet of the Guru at one of the launch parties whilst I was at Treadwell's, and it seemed to be the same general stuff. He's like one of those bands whose songs always somehow sound the same, perhaps the Pet Shop Boys or Depeche Mode; not that I have anything against those bands (actually the reverse), but you know what I mean. It interests me that nobody on these forums ever actually discusses Grant's ideas in any concrete way, whilst everyone's always arguing about what Crowley said and meant. And I think that's quite telling.

And if you think reading Crowley is like wading through shit then you really are in the wrong place.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 12:02 am  

At many points I thought that about Crowley, I can only imagine that if I had read Grant first I wouldn't have thought much of it at all.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 12:05 am  
"AEternitas" wrote:
At many points I thought that about Crowley, I can only imagine that if I had read Grant first I wouldn't have thought much of it at all.

This is just divisive trolling now.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1825
11/02/2010 12:13 am  

Have you ever read At The Feet of the Guru

Bringing up this book is a good point, AEternitas, as it has Grant approaching mysticism from a very different literary angle. In fact, if one did not know the essays in that volume were written by the same author of the Trilogies, I doubt it would be suspected. Still, the devotional mysticism of that book forms the basis for much of the more "fantastic" aspects of the Trilogies. Just as the basis of the visonary voyagings of the Tibetan Book of the Dead is rooted in essential Buddhist teachings and practices, so we might regard ATFOTG as such a basis for the elaborations of the Trilogies. The Visions beheld in the Bardo space are-IMO-no less "otherworldly" than those forms utilized in Grant's material. The value of both lies in the cutting through illusion which runs deeper than we might suspect. Ultimately, the horrid forms of the TBD are beheld as the "Mild Buddhas" and these "Mild Buddhas" ("alchemized," if you will) are understood as manifestations of Mind beyond Ego. Interesting that Grant never writes that we've pinpointed the longitude and latitude of Cthulhu's undersea lair. Instead, Cthulhu emerges to destroy EGO and reveal the nature of the Mind.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 12:41 am  

Ian, I'll say again what I've said before in these forums about the Typhonian Order, that its not for me but that it may have potential supplemental value to the work of Crowley, for those so inclined. That's about all I have to say about it, pending Kyle's reply to my earlier post to him.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 12:42 am  
"alrah" wrote:
"AEternitas" wrote:
At many points I thought that about Crowley, I can only imagine that if I had read Grant first I wouldn't have thought much of it at all.

This is just divisive trolling now.

Please explain that to me, I don't understand.

My point was that if I had read Grant before reading Crowley, I would have thought it was complete and other garbage, just as I did Crowley's Book 4 part 2, or The Book of the Law when I first encountered them.
It is easy for me to see how Grant's works can be seen as utter garbage, but those that do should keep in mind that many people, spiritually inclined people, feel the exact same way about Crowley.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
11/02/2010 12:52 am  

Camlion, you asked:

So you think that all Thelemites must practice Magick? What if they have no natural interest or aptitude for it? Is the Law not for all, regardless of whether or not one practices Magick, your way or another way?

Given Crowley's definition, how would any Thelemite fail to practice Magick? Assuming they are working to accomplish their Will, I mean? Are you suggesting that someone could be a Thelemite without even working to accomplish their Will?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
11/02/2010 12:52 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Cthulhu emerges to destroy EGO and reveal the nature of the Mind.

A bit like sticking your head in a blender, you mean? The thing I liked about the well-known Lovecraft expert Justin Woodman is that he understands perfectly well, and admits frankly, that Cthulhu-worship is a form of insanity. Seems others are still on that journey of discovery.

This is akin to the almost pathological inability to acknowledge and address the contadictions in Grant's "interpretation" of Crowley (e.g., the Choronzon-as-Secret-Chief thing).

If Grant's followers could recognise the contradictions, the insanity, then fine. It's this attempt to sweep it all under the carpet and go on as if nothing had happened which is, frankly, quite creepy.


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
11/02/2010 1:11 am  

Cthulhu emerges to destroy EGO and reveal the nature of the Mind.

Indriya Pratyahara is a technique for controlling our physical sense organs to eliminate the distorting, external effect.

Interesting that the 'indriyam' (the sense-organs) are usually described as 'tentacles'.

We cut off the tentacles to kill the Ego. Maybe Cthulhu is the Ego? 😀


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 1:14 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
Camlion, you asked:

So you think that all Thelemites must practice Magick? What if they have no natural interest or aptitude for it? Is the Law not for all, regardless of whether or not one practices Magick, your way or another way?

Given Crowley's definition, how would any Thelemite fail to practice Magick? Assuming they are working to accomplish their Will, I mean? Are you suggesting that someone could be a Thelemite without even working to accomplish their Will?

No, thiebes, I am not suggesting that. I was referring to the more formal practice of ceremonial Magick and similar technical matters, not merely to working to accomplish one's Will. Pardon any confusion.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1825
11/02/2010 1:41 am  

That's about all I have to say about it, pending Kyle's reply to my earlier post to him.

Camlion-

Sorry I didn't respond to your question sooner. If you are referring to the post with the a) b) c) d) options, I agree with you fully. If someone is "at odds" with their True Will, things are going to be a self-defeating mess. Understanding and moving in harmony with the Will is the key thing. And, yes, we understand all of our pursuits in terms of what I tend to think of as our "authenticity." These "pursuits" are nigh-infinite. We are always engaged in something and constantly taking part in a perpetually "Going" Cosmos. How authentically do we move along this Path? This is a basic concern and its application does not imply some compulsory pursuit of Gematria, ritual magic or any of the other things that "typify" the Neo-Crowleyan subculture. I also think this "self-understanding" is more readily evoked by introspection and honesty than elaborate "magickal" workings and so forth. All that being said, there is expression of Will in our various "occult" endeavors, which does not need to be justified to anyone else other than ourselves. Gravitating towards dialgoue with others who share common interests is only natural. For example, you and I have different interests and things we've chosen to focus on but we both share an interest in and concern with The Law of Thelema and I think that's been a quite solid basis for our many discussions.

It should also be noted that a formal acceptance of this Law is requisite for those seeking admission into the Typhonian Order. The TO is not for everyone and not for every "Thelemite" but for those who ARE drawn in this direction, the Law is the foundation and should assure that those who continue after this Path do so in accordance with their Will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 1:43 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
This is akin to the almost pathological inability to acknowledge and address the contadictions in Grant's "interpretation" of Crowley (e.g., the Choronzon-as-Secret-Chief thing).

If Grant's followers could recognise the contradictions, the insanity, then fine. It's this attempt to sweep it all under the carpet and go on as if nothing had happened which is, frankly, quite creepy.

This is really not a fair treatment Ian. Grant believes, based on his own experiences, that Crowley did not understand Choronzon. He believes that he has come to a more complete understanding of this Mystery.

Now I have never worked with Choronzon, so I really can't wade into the debate too deeply. However, it seems to me that Crowley was not Omnipotent, and he could very well of been wrong. The same goes for Grant. These are only men, after all.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/02/2010 9:51 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
What saddens me is that there is a contingent of angst-ridden teenagers, people who haven't really read Crowley much at all, who hear about him through Kenneth Grant, who think it's all about "darkness, despair and death", and who appear to be too stupid to recognise how badly wrong they really are

Ian, 93!

I think this is a serious topic and should probably be treated - if anyone likes to - in a seperate thread. Alas, it seems to be a fact, that there is a tendency in some adolescents to become angst-ridden, to look for the dark sides, to rebel against the mainstream and its values, to long for "darkness, despair and death" - but you could replace "despair" easily with "sex and drugs and megalomania". This is what drove little Alick into the occult too. Most of the time these tendencies disappear with time and most of the time people will not pursue this path. But to be fair, I don't think the big danger for those teenagers is to fall prey to those "TOTO folk", because it is my impression - although I don't know - that "the Typhonians" examine pretty earnestly who might be worth to join. In my opinion there is a bigger danger for young adults to fall prey to other organisations that "work" in the name of Crowley, and sell their ideologies (Nazi ideas, suicide clubs, Satanism in its purely sensational form etc.) as Thelemic or simply want to profit financially from their victims. I am confident that the OTO (and the TOTO) are well aware of their responsibilities but if you stroll through the web you find a lot of real dangerous bullshit under the heading of Crowley or Thelema. Understanding Crowley's philosophies is not easy, and his "message to the human race [...] "Believe in yourself, stand up and fight!" is pretty ambivalent and open for interpretations of many kinds, and there will always be enough "angst-ridden teenagers" who will approach Thelema with "wrong" motives and methods. Sites like Lashtal.com and most people/organisations that post here provide useful information how to avoid those dangers and neither the "Typhonians" bait people on any "dark and slimy and necronomical side of Thelema" nor does the OTO with slogans like "Wanna have sex with whom and whenever you want just like Crowley had? Join!" There are a lot of people/organisations who simply want to SELL Crowley and Thelema, but the "Typhonians" clearly don't. So you should keep your criticisms to other points (which you mostly do of course, I am simply referring to the quote at the top of my post).

My two cents: Is Grant's view on Thelema compatible with the "joy" and "leaping laughter" of Crowley's? I guess it is, although taking some strange/interesting/weird/enlightening detours. Detours not so much different (in weirdness) from some Crowley took. And, as Kyle said, there are people who see no measurable difference between Chtulhu and Ra-Hoor-Kuit, apart from personal aesthetic preferences. Blindly worshipping both godforms is equally stupid, and in the end it is just about "my piece of cake" or not.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 12:03 pm  

Quite why I got pulled up on the enochian thread, definitely an area in which I don't, or have ever had, any interest in, seems fairly inconsiderate. After all, we'll realise from The Exorcist that just a simple Ouija board will do the trick fine these days. I mean, just look what happened to that little girl...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 3:58 pm  

Dear Ian,

"ianrons" wrote:
"AEternitas" wrote:
Well when you dress it up in such alluring and esoteric terms, who wouldn't want to have sex with AND be eaten by an arachnid? The process seems analogous to invocation...

You know what one of the things I really love about Crowley is? I know he may have been a real shit to the people in his life, he may have deliberately set about to create an anti-Christian personality-cult just to rebel against authority, and he may have lied left, right and centre; but he didn't entice people to be devoured by their own fears, in fact for all his craziness his own message to the human race is: "Believe in yourself, stand up and fight!"

I'd guess that Mr. Grant would be with you on that one pretty much all the way, as would many. Have you ever read his book, 'Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God' ? He celebrates Crowley for similar reasons to that you mention.

Also, did you know that he actually knew the man personally and spent at least enough time with him to know what he thought about this and that? And I am pretty sure he has read one or two of Mr. Crowley's books, perhaps even three. Or perhaps all of them, oh wait, he actually republished them before anyone else did. Oh. Yes. Maybe he actually knows what he's talking about after all.

Then I suppose each editor is different, and they're not all cut from the same cloth. So you may have a point on a purely abstract level. But I reckon he would agree with you. It's just that, as you say this is one of the things you like about Crowley, I'd guess it's one of the things Grant likes about him too, but there are many more facets to Crowley - and let's not forget, to Thelema, which is something else entirely- than 'Believe in yourself, stand up and fight'.

"ianrons" wrote:
What saddens me is that there is a contingent of angst-ridden teenagers, people who haven't really read Crowley much at all, who hear about him through Kenneth Grant, who think it's all about "darkness, despair and death", and who appear to be too stupid to recognise how badly wrong they really are, trying to abstract everything into vapour so as to justify bowing down before their fears. I'm also disappointed in myself that I've been polite to them and their malodorous, contemptible philosophy for so long.

'Darkness'.

Fair enough. Absolutely. There is no other artist who communicates the mysteries of Darkness with such exquisite depth as Mr. Grant, in my opinion. To me much of Grant's work works very much like The Book of Lies.

This focus on Darkness in his work is simply a continuation of Crowley's focus on 'infernal' energies such as Therion, Set, Shaitan, Pan, and so forth and is identical to it (imho). It's the same thing, done later, now. With a twist . . .

But he has made some very interesting ground, and, this would surely be lost on the angst-ridden teenagers you mention who have only heard about AC through KG, . . . as well as lost on all those many, many more angst-ridden teenagers who have only ever heard about Crowley through Du Quette or Eshelman or Breeze, for example [sic.]; and on all those angst-ridden teenagers who have never heard of him at all, which is most of them- this focus on Darkness is essentially a celebration of and exploration of the Goddess and Her deeper ( -est?) mysteries, something Crowley never quite managed to get round to dealing with to the same extent. It culminates (in my opinion) in Outer Gateways, which weaves the 'spooky' stuff which you don't like; the stuff on the mysteries of Absence; and the mysteries of the female, all together in a way which I think is only approached to a similar level of sublimity in Chapter One of Nightside of Eden. The ways in which all of these relate to Thelema is a constant theme of the entire Trilogies, and is, to my mind, a quite seamless continuation of one of the constant themes in Crowley's work, articulated beautifully in the Book of Lies:

'Soft and hollow, how thou dost overcome the hard and full!'

'Despair'.
I don't know how you get 'despair' out of Grant unless you simply despair of understanding how to approach his work, which I can understand. I never found it particularly accessible until recently. In my experience (and I've had a few goes at Grant over a couple of decades, at my most derisive moment the penny dropped and kept falling . . .) what Grant's work opens up is territory well beyond such 'angst-ridden teenagers', or 'despair', or indeed any other emotional quality. I can't think of a less emotional writer, or one who appeals less to that level of experience.

'Death'.
Hmm. Experience with his material -odd and unexpected as it has been- has certainly opened my eye to what 'life' may or may not be, as well as death. Surprisingly, and I'm surprised to hear myself say this, it's much less cluttered than Crowley, more direct writing in some ways. There's less stuff in the way, or something like that.

cheers
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 5:38 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

That's about all I have to say about it, pending Kyle's reply to my earlier post to him.

Camlion-

Sorry I didn't respond to your question sooner. If you are referring to the post with the a) b) c) d) options, I agree with you fully. If someone is "at odds" with their True Will, things are going to be a self-defeating mess. Understanding and moving in harmony with the Will is the key thing. And, yes, we understand all of our pursuits in terms of what I tend to think of as our "authenticity." These "pursuits" are nigh-infinite. We are always engaged in something and constantly taking part in a perpetually "Going" Cosmos. How authentically do we move along this Path? This is a basic concern and its application does not imply some compulsory pursuit of Gematria, ritual magic or any of the other things that "typify" the Neo-Crowleyan subculture. I also think this "self-understanding" is more readily evoked by introspection and honesty than elaborate "magickal" workings and so forth. All that being said, there is expression of Will in our various "occult" endeavors, which does not need to be justified to anyone else other than ourselves. Gravitating towards dialgoue with others who share common interests is only natural. For example, you and I have different interests and things we've chosen to focus on but we both share an interest in and concern with The Law of Thelema and I think that's been a quite solid basis for our many discussions.

It should also be noted that a formal acceptance of this Law is requisite for those seeking admission into the Typhonian Order. The TO is not for everyone and not for every "Thelemite" but for those who ARE drawn in this direction, the Law is the foundation and should assure that those who continue after this Path do so in accordance with their Will.

Thanks for the reply, Kyle, and no problem with the delay - mine to you was just as delayed.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 5:58 pm  
"SSS" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
This is akin to the almost pathological inability to acknowledge and address the contadictions in Grant's "interpretation" of Crowley (e.g., the Choronzon-as-Secret-Chief thing).

If Grant's followers could recognise the contradictions, the insanity, then fine. It's this attempt to sweep it all under the carpet and go on as if nothing had happened which is, frankly, quite creepy.

This is really not a fair treatment Ian. Grant believes, based on his own experiences, that Crowley did not understand Choronzon. He believes that he has come to a more complete understanding of this Mystery.

A debate on the nature of 'Choronzon' is impossible, imo, not to mention it being quite silly to even attempt. This matter pertains to a personal subjective experience of Crowley's compared with those of others, how could we possibly debate this objectively? Beyond that, we would be debating conclusions drawn by these individuals based on this subjective experience, which we (perhaps inaccurately) assume to be experiences of the same phenomena. There is no way to measure these things other than to compare accounts of other people's observations, and by including our own if we happen to think that we have had a similar experience. The secular Thelemite might challenge the existence of the thing outright, and justifiably so from his or her perspective. Silly debate.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 6:06 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
I might just as well say that if you love Kenneth Grant so much then "why don't you leave [the Aleister Crowley Society] well enough alone and let the rest of us get on with it then?" None of this really has anything to do with Aleister Crowley.

Oh wait, but isn't it also the unofficial home of the Kenneth Grant society? Roll on the Starfire website...

You've had your petulant pills today, Ian, I can tell...

Do you intend your posts to always come across as not even 'ill-tempered', but merely 'cross', and without the saving grace of a little flash of humour?

Interesting to see that you edited this post twice; perhaps you felt you hadn't got your message properly across the first time. Don't fret - it's always the same one with you, and by now pretty well all of us are hip to it.

Thanks for your thought. Are you quite sure you can spare it?

o


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
11/02/2010 6:28 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
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.

Eloquently stated sir. But I offer one amendment: You say "They are not Thelema." They may not be *your* Thelema, and I may agree with you that they are not *my* Thelema, but you cannot categorically speak for others. You can say that in your opinion 'they are not Crowley's Thelema" (and again, I may agree with you), but I believe that the matter is still open for individual interpretation.

You ask: "Why would anyone want to divorce Thelema from AC's interpretation of it?" but I must point out that I don't see anyone asking for such a "divorce" (although I know self-professed Thelemites who try, for whatever self-centered reason-- yet they too declare: "I am the Truth"). Acknowledging the antecedents of Thelema such as Rabelais in no way robs Liber Al Vel Legis or The Master Therion of his authority as the Magus of the Aeon.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 7:25 pm  

Also, Walter, regarding this fear that people are going to run amok with their own interpretations of Thelema, no doubt justified, this must be balanced by the fact that AC did not leave us written instructions covering every contingency that might arise in the future. We can't just say "If AC didn't write about it, we can't do it!" Thelemites are going to have to do some thinking for themselves now that AC is gone.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
11/02/2010 8:38 pm  

Indeed, although it is my opinion that those of us who have recieved knowlege and taken vows under the initiatory rituals of Baphomet X' (or perhaps, that at least have familiarized themselves with those rituals in whatever medium that they may have available) *have* recieved more instruction in these matters than those who have not. But, it must be said, one need not take a single degree in *any* initiatory order, Caliphate or Typhonian, in order to call one's self a Thelemite.

And indeed, we are *all* going to have to do some thinking for ourselves since Uncle Al is 60+ years past his expiration date...or at least we all *should* be. I opine to my Christian friends that no matter how timeless the wisdom of the Christos, or the Teacher of Righteousness may be, the application of that wisdom some 2000+ years later may no longer be as practicle or straightforward as it was to those interant shepherds and fishermen he originally related them to; so too, I believe, with To Mega Therion-- because I daresay that the world has probably changed as much from the time of dawn of the Atomic Age to the present as it did between the height of the Roman Empire to the end of the Victorian Era. However, "that Word of Truth" as Thiebes calls it, Thelema, no more changes than the Word of the Christos, 'Agape.'


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 9:15 pm  

Thank you for the insightful reply, Walter. I do admire your independent perspective.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
11/02/2010 10:52 pm  

Lutz,

Thanks for your comments. I'd rather not address the first paragraph, which deals with politically dubious interpretations of Crowley; suffice to say that I don't regard the Typhonians as dangerous, except inasmuch as their intellectual shortcomings, combined with their indignation should anyone not pay what they regard as due respect for their obvious stupidity, represent a mode within British cultural life which I find despicable. It is a distinctly British phenomenon.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
My two cents: Is Grant's view on Thelema compatible with the "joy" and "leaping laughter" of Crowley's? I guess it is

I'd disagree, because I don't think squids and spiders are really beauteous, joyful and worth a shag!

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
as Kyle said, there are people who see no measurable difference between Chtulhu and Ra-Hoor-Kuit, apart from personal aesthetic preferences. Blindly worshipping both godforms is equally stupid, and in the end it is just about "my piece of cake" or not.

What this is really about is the desire of certain people to spiritually masturbate over filth and dirt -- that's how I see it. So it's a matter of cleanliness. I perfectly accept their right to do it, but I find it really goddam tedious that they want to connect it with something I've associated myself with in the past. Grant just invented something hideous and called it "Thelema", based on the fact that he knew Crowley briefly. However, after criticizing the Typhonians for a considerable time, it's not clear that they actually appreciate what Crowley said or meant by the term "Thelema", or how Grant's words muddy things. In short, they just don't seem to understand how irritating they're being, to be honest, and they don't seem interested enough to find out. Which is why I get annoyed...


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
11/02/2010 11:26 pm  

Noctifer,

"Noctifer" wrote:
[D]id you know that he actually knew [Crowley] personally and spent at least enough time with him to know what he thought about this and that?

Well, it's clear he knew Crowley for a time before being dismissed from service, but there were a lot of people who knew Crowley and worked with him. This doesn't give Grant the right to talk nonsense. That's a simple point, but it seems to be beyond Typhonians.

"Noctifer" wrote:
And I am pretty sure he has read one or two of Mr. Crowley's books, perhaps even three. Or perhaps all of them, oh wait, he actually republished them before anyone else did. Oh. Yes. Maybe he actually knows what he's talking about after all.

This is something of an exaggeration which I'm not going to bother to unpick. Suffice to say that I've read Crowley myself, and a lot more of his work is available these days. I think it bears mentioning that being a man's secretary doesn't make that person the master, especially when they blatantly contradict the man all the time. Except in Grantian fantasy-land, that is.

What was it Agur said?

For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear. For a servant when he reigneth and a fool when he is filled with meat; for an odious woman when she is married, and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
11/02/2010 11:33 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
A debate on the nature of 'Choronzon' is impossible, imo, not to mention it being quite silly to even attempt. This matter pertains to a personal subjective experience of Crowley's compared with those of others, how could we possibly debate this objectively? Beyond that, we would be debating conclusions drawn by these individuals based on this subjective experience, which we (perhaps inaccurately) assume to be experiences of the same phenomena. There is no way to measure these things other than to compare accounts of other people's observations, and by including our own if we happen to think that we have had a similar experience. The secular Thelemite might challenge the existence of the thing outright, and justifiably so from his or her perspective. Silly debate.

"Words" are connections of syllables which convey meaning. What you are suggesting, by supposing that it doesn't matter if we all mean different things by words, is a sort of confusion that I can only imagine you regard as clever. Good luck with that.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
11/02/2010 11:39 pm  

oneiros,

"oneiros" wrote:
You've had your petulant pills today, Ian, I can tell...

Do you intend your posts to always come across as not even 'ill-tempered', but merely 'cross', and without the saving grace of a little flash of humour?

Interesting to see that you edited this post twice; perhaps you felt you hadn't got your message properly across the first time. Don't fret - it's always the same one with you, and by now pretty well all of us are hip to it.

Thanks for your thought. Are you quite sure you can spare it?

o

I'm being mean and unpleasant to people who defend Kenneth Grant's ridiculous posturing and nonsense, for the simple reason that I'm tired of his drivel dripping down the chins of a bunch of people here. I've posted elsewhere on this topic in a more light-hearted vein; but mostly I like to stick to the points of discussion, which I note that none of the Typhonians have managed to do.

And as if I need to provide humour when criticizing people who worship seafood! It's YOU that have lost your sense of the ridiculous. And what, am I not being polite enough to your majesties? Better than stuck-up pomposity and mystery-mongering -- say what you bloody think.

(Oh noes, ai haz edited mai post!!)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 12:15 am  

Where's the love?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 12:20 am  

It left the building along with it's sidekick sanity.


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
12/02/2010 12:37 am  

I'm being mean and unpleasant to people who defend Kenneth Grant's ridiculous posturing and nonsense, for the simple reason that I'm tired of his drivel dripping down the chins of a bunch of people here.

What is your intent, Ian? Do you really want them to change their minds and adopt your view? (Please justify any answer other than 'No')

Does your, or anyone's, version of Thelema need defending? Should we declare an Apostasy and assemble an Inquisition?

Their thoughts and actions, right or wrong, don't affect anyone but themselves. I don't see why anyone, particularly a Thelemite, would care so much.

John


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 1:18 am  

John,

"Proteus" wrote:
What is your intent, Ian? Do you really want them to change their minds and adopt your view? (Please justify any answer other than 'No')

Does your, or anyone's, version of Thelema need defending? Should we declare an Apostasy and assemble an Inquisition?

Their thoughts and actions, right or wrong, don't affect anyone but themselves. I don't see why anyone, particularly a Thelemite, would care so much.

No, I don't really want them to change their minds, and don't expect them to. It's simply about self-expression.

And it's not true to say that their thoughts and actions affect no-one else: they affect everything all the time, obviously, although perhaps not very much. But the reason I care so much is that I'm bored with the constant drivel about Grant all the time here... this site seems to have become a sort of haven for a kind of offensive anti-intellectualism, and it's exceptionally tiresome. It doesn't seem to matter to them that Grant is clearly just on the make, and that they may as well be playing D&D for all the purpose there is to their mental... erm... manipulations.

However, if they realised the problems with Grant's work, acknowledged how crazy it is and stopped pretending it has anything to do with Crowley (except insofar as the terminology is ripped off), then I wouldn't give it a second thought, but the real issue is that because I use the same terminology (but correctly) it's a constant bother when a lot of the people here don't understand what I mean by it. In effect, there are two groups on this forum using the same words but giving them a different meaning. Regardless of whether it's a result of Grant's intellectual dishonesty or not, there seems something important there which needs to be addressed, and which the Typhonians seem unable to recognise. I suppose that's because they think Grant is really clever or something... but actually he's another Wizard of Oz type figure, or "Hooka Ma Jooka man" as one of our correspondents would put it.


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
12/02/2010 1:47 am  

Ian,

Thanks for the clarification.

In effect, there are two groups on this forum using the same words but giving them a different meaning.

Can you cite a few examples so we have something (constructive) to work with/argue about?

Thanks,
John


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 1:53 am  

"Aeon", "secret chiefs", "Choronzon" (to cite three mentioned in my OTCOT review mentioned elsewhere), but also "Beast", practically all of the OTO stuff, and lots more besides -- more or less every piece of terminology in Qabalistic/G.D. and Crowleyan systems. I might bring in examples from voodoo and Tantrism but these aren't subjects I'm expert in.

Note these examples aren't just "matters of opinion", they're pieces of terminology that are used in fundamentally different ways -- are defined differently -- in the two "schools" (if you can call them that). By extension, they inform wildly differing philosophies too.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1825
12/02/2010 2:11 am  

they think Grant is really clever or something... but actually he's another Wizard of Oz type figure, or "Hooka Ma Jooka man"

I used to think the same thing when I first began reading Grant so this impression is not one I am wholly unsympathetic towards. I had read sentiments similar to Ian's (such as G.M. Kelly's reviews) and when I actually began reading the source material, it seemed to fit the description. It was too "far out," suggestive and confusing for me to see it otherwise. It would be years later when my knowledge and experience would find me ready for another plunge into the Trilogies-and what I would find was an amazing wealth of insight and vision. What seemed "dark" was suddenly seen as vibrantly "colorful," a type of living mosaic, utilizing the liberties it takes with "standard" ways of doing things to "fertilize the unknown dimensions of...consciousness." Not everyone will find the soil of their mind adequately tilled to receive this impress. That's OK. But it doesn't imply that the "seed" lacks vitality or potential.

Despite Ian's offhanded dismissal of At The Feet Of The Guru, it is the simplicty (and depth) of these essays which indicate the mystical standpoint from which much of the fantastic elements of the Trilogies subsequently emerge.

I am honestly at a loss as to where Ian comes up with his idea that any Typhonian "worships" Cthulhu. Certainly not from Grant's writing. He treats of the subject as follows:

“Like other accounts of unclassifiable phases of earth's history the Cthulhu Cult epitomises the subconsciousness and the forces outside terrestrial awareness. It may be said in passing that true creativity can occur only when these forces are invoked to flood with their light the magical network of the mind. For purposes of explanation the mind may be envisaged as divided into three rooms, the edifice which contains them being the only real or permanent principle. These rooms are:

“1) Subconsciousness, the dream state;
“2) Mundane consciousness, the waking state;
“3) Transcendantal consciousness, veiled in the non-initiate by the state of sleep.

“The compartments are further conceived as being connected with the house that contains them, by a series of conduits or tunnels. The house represents trans-terrestrial consciousness. The invoked forces - Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, Azathoth, etc - are then understood, not as malignant or destructive entities but as the dynamic energies of consciousness, the functions of which are to blast away the delusion of separate existence (the rooms in our illustration).”

We will find in the Trilogies that LAM is addressed in similar terms. It is profoundly mystical work and to represent it in the terms Ian does is-IMO-either dishonest or ignorant. Or maybe it was just a bad experience with seafood as a child. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 3:11 am  

Kenneth Grant doesn't seem like a charlatan to me, quite the opposite. He's one of the more valuable and original contributors to the post-Crowley Thelemic canon. Like Crowley, he's an intrepid explorer and pioneer of inner space domains.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 3:35 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I am honestly at a loss as to where Ian comes up with his idea that any Typhonian "worships" Cthulhu. Certainly not from Grant's writing. He treats of the subject as follows:

“Like other accounts of unclassifiable phases of earth's history the Cthulhu Cult [...]

Erm... yeah... the term "Cthulhu Cult" is a bit of a giveaway, but as you know perfectly well there are plenty of other examples, such as where Grant defines Cthulhu in the glossary to OTCOT as "the Hidden God", or as a Great Old One/Secret Chief (spec. in Binah). Also the Lam Serpent Sadhana is a practice designed to raise Cthulhu; and in the quote you yourself cite, Grant mentions Cthulhu as a force to be invoked. You're being very disingenuous. "honestly at a loss"? LOL. I suppose the bag of Cthulhu is just for recreational use... or were you holding it for a friend...?

worship, v.
1. a. trans. To honour or revere as a supernatural being or power, or as a holy thing; to regard or approach with veneration; to adore with appropriate acts, rites, or ceremonies.
b. transf. To regard with extreme respect or devotion; to ‘adore’.
– Oxford English Dictionary


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 5
Share: