Notifications
Clear all

Typhonian Order: 2 questions  

Page 5 / 5
  RSS

kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
12/02/2010 4:04 am  

I suppose the bag of Cthulhu is just for recreational use... or were you holding it for a friend...?

Implying what, Ian? That I must be a stoner because of the value I find Mr. Grant's writings? Not that it is any of your business but "strange drugs" are not my thing. Nor do I feel they are necessary to the Great Work. Or the Lam-Serpent Sadhana. Speaking of the latter, I have studied and performed this rite hundreds of times, never once with the intent of raising some apocalyptic squid from the seas. The "tentacular" elements therein may be understood in context of the quote from Mr. grant which I cited above. It is a visionary-and ultimately-mystical endeavor.

No, Ian, I am not being

disingenuous.

I am simply expressing the value I have personally found in some of the subtleties underpinning the Typhonian use of such forms. It is only fair that those readers who may later on explore and enjoy this material have more to go on than your own crude caricatures.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
12/02/2010 4:14 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
I suppose the bag of Cthulhu is just for recreational use... or were you holding it for a friend...?

Implying what, Ian? That I must be a stoner because of the value I find Mr. Grant's writings?

Are you saying you can actually get bags of Cthulhu? Or was I perhaps drawing an analogy...? That of being in a position which is impossible to deny, try as you might.

You lot do worship Cthulhu, obviously. It's a bit silly coming at me for pointing it out: I can't help it if your religion sucks... literally... I mean it has suckers... Cthulhu, that is 😛


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 4:16 am  

I liked Phil Hines take on Cthulhu Madness as given in his Pseudonomicon. He describes the Ancient Ones as experiences that you thrust yourself into, states of consiousness that bring on the initiatory crisis, as opposed to being a distinct entity. I personally do not believe that there is a giant squid monster lurking and dreaming in some cyclopean city beneath the sea(but who knows really....) non the lesss....I still believe in Cthulhu. Hmmm, all this talk of Cthulhu worship has me thinking, maybe I should bust out Liber CLXXV and start doing some CTHULHU WORSHIP!!!!!! CTHULHU F'tagn R'yla!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 4:17 am  
"ianrons" wrote:
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
I suppose the bag of Cthulhu is just for recreational use... or were you holding it for a friend...?

Implying what, Ian? That I must be a stoner because of the value I find Mr. Grant's writings?

Are you saying you can actually get bags of Cthulhu? Or was I perhaps drawing an analogy...? That of being in a position which is impossible to deny, try as you might.

You lot do worship Cthulhu, obviously. It's a bit silly coming at me for pointing it out: I can't help it if your religion sucks... literally... I mean it has suckers... Cthulhu, that is 😛

No but you can get bags of Yog Shothoth, it's SALVIA DIVINORUM ya dig?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 4:31 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
"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.

Sorry, Ian, my fault. I was assuming an understanding of the difference in protocol between discussion and debate. The former is merely an exchange of ideas, but the latter presumes at least the remote possibility of resolution.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 8:31 pm  

I find it interesting that Mr. Grant wrote of what's going on now some years ago. From the Introduction to Outer Gateways:

"Harrassment by warring factions seeking temporal power at the expense of intemporal space-transcending Knowledge stifled the spark and fouled the springs of the ancient Wisdom."


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
12/02/2010 9:45 pm  

By "what's going on now", are you referring to posts on these Forums? If so, linking these tiny storms in teacups with Grant's reference to "harrassment" (sic.) is an enormous stretch and an absurd over-statement.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 9:50 pm  

Exactly, book of lies chapter 14.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 10:10 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
By "what's going on now", are you referring to posts on these Forums? If so, linking these tiny storms in teacups with Grant's reference to "harrassment" (sic.) is an enormous stretch and an absurd over-statement.

Yes, I'm referring to posts on these Forums. I don't see it as that much of a stretch or overstatement... well maybe just a little. It's basically the same thing on a much smaller scale. Sorry for the spelling error, it's spelled that way in the book.

The ch.14 Book of Lies quote is a bit too obscure for me. Can you explain what you're getting at RemeaviThantos?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
12/02/2010 10:17 pm  

It's basically the same thing on a much smaller scale

As Above, So Below.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 10:37 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
I can't help it if your religion sucks... literally... I mean it has suckers... Cthulhu, that is 😛

lmao! Sensual delusional cults are everywhere... and while a healthy imagination is to be praised I'm not sure the original author ever got off the starting blocks. Nice poetry, and a bohemian evening with wine that flattered many an artists dark fantsies... but not really magick! lol. 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 3:03 am  

Maybe someone from the Typhonian Order can answer this question:

Does LAM represent the secret stellar self aka Hadit?


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 165
13/02/2010 9:14 am  
"Walterfive" wrote:
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.

That is the sense that I meant it. I thought it went without saying that I was expressing my opinion and that I was talking about Crowley's Thelema. But I can see why it didn't go without saying, so I'm saying it now 🙂

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").

I think that Grant's ideas are a bit of a departure from AC and that their legitimacy depends on the idea that we can basically ignore AC.

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.

I have not criticized the idea of acknowledging antecedents nor do I think that is the subject of discussion here. This seems to be a straw man.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
14/02/2010 12:53 am  
"tai" wrote:
Does LAM represent the secret stellar self aka Hadit?

In my view there is a connection, yes. From Crowley's inscription below the reproduction of the portrait in Equinox III,and more particularly the placement of the portrait as frontispiece to his commentary on Blavatsky's The Voice of the Silence, it can be inferred that LAM signifies the Voice of the Silence, the Silent Self, the bud-will, etc.

This is a very deep and tenuous subject, typified by fleeting inuitions. It is my own feeling that 1917/18 - when he was writing Liber Aleph, trafficking with Amalantrah, and undertaking the Magical Retirement that encompassed the memories of past lives and the reworking of Legge's translation of the Yi King - represents a peak or concentration of Crowley's mystical insight, one with which he subsequently lost touch to some extent.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
14/02/2010 1:42 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
It is my own feeling that 1917/18 - when he was writing Liber Aleph, trafficking with Amalantrah, and undertaking the Magical Retirement that encompassed the memories of past lives and the reworking of Legge's translation of the Yi King - represents a peak or concentration of Crowley's mystical insight, one with which he subsequently lost touch to some extent.

That's a very interesting comment, Mick, and one with which I'd broadly agree. There's certainly plenty of evidence, for example in the published diaries, that by 1919 Crowley was beginning to look desperately for something he'd clearly lost. Although his time at Cefalu had some creative flashes and long periods of sheer hard work, it wasn't until the mid- to late-20s that he found it again.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/02/2010 2:25 am  

Not too get too off topic, but after Crowley's death in 1923(?), just who was he for those remaining years of his physical existence?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/02/2010 2:38 am  

Why he was To Mega Therion, of course! 🙄


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/02/2010 2:55 am  

Ian,

You mentioned some nonsense about worshipping Cthulhu....well that's simply untrue. (now as for the rediculous "Cult of Cthulhu, headed by that Derrick DICKshaw dude, with his retarded Bible....they might.) As a member of the E.O.D. even I don't worship Cthulhu, Dagon, Yog-Sothoth, or any of the other Great Old Ones, for that matter. Apparently you are unable to grasp the simple concept of these entities representing certain esoteric concepts not easily expressible in non-dual language. The worship of any diety does not exist as a required practice in either the E.O.D., Typhonian Order, nor any other New Aeon Order that I am aware of. You are just being silly now, Ian.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
14/02/2010 4:01 am  
"AEternitas" wrote:
Not too get too off topic, but after Crowley's death in 1923(?), just who was he for those remaining years of his physical existence?

Crowley died in 1947. But please tell me you knew that already…

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/02/2010 4:10 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
This is a very deep and tenuous subject, typified by fleeting inuitions. It is my own feeling that 1917/18 - when he was writing Liber Aleph, trafficking with Amalantrah, and undertaking the Magical Retirement that encompassed the memories of past lives and the reworking of Legge's translation of the Yi King - represents a peak or concentration of Crowley's mystical insight, one with which he subsequently lost touch to some extent.

Thanks for that explanation.

Along these lines, does anyone know the date that Crowley produced his idealized self-portrait – i.e. prior to, or after the Amalantrah Working?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
14/02/2010 10:53 am  
"tai" wrote:
Along these lines, does anyone know the date that Crowley produced his idealized self-portrait – i.e. prior to, or after the Amalantrah Working?

No I don't, but I hope someone can place it. I have always been struck by a certain resemblance to the portrait of LAM.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/02/2010 11:02 am  
"zardoz" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
By "what's going on now", are you referring to posts on these Forums? If so, linking these tiny storms in teacups with Grant's reference to "harrassment" (sic.) is an enormous stretch and an absurd over-statement.

Yes, I'm referring to posts on these Forums. I don't see it as that much of a stretch or overstatement... well maybe just a little. It's basically the same thing on a much smaller scale. Sorry for the spelling error, it's spelled that way in the book.

The ch.14 Book of Lies quote is a bit too obscure for me. Can you explain what you're getting at RemeaviThantos?

Sorry Z no obscuration intended, the reference simply refered to a balance of view points and perhaps a reflection as to the great joke behind all fixed view points.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
14/02/2010 11:04 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
"AEternitas" wrote:
Not too get too off topic, but after Crowley's death in 1923(?), just who was he for those remaining years of his physical existence?

Crowley died in 1947. But please tell me you knew that already…

I think that this is perhaps a reference to the attainment of the Ipsissimus grade, which in my opinion has analogues with the Hindu concept of jivanmukta, liberated whilst yet living. The idea is that the vehicle of incarnation continues its existence until its natural term, but awareness or consciousness is elsewhere. There are echoes here of the Magister Templi basking in the City of the Pyramids, leaving behind a little pile of dust.

Is this what you were referring to, AEteritas?

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/02/2010 11:08 am  

See Bok Chapter 67.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/02/2010 2:58 pm  

One doesn't wish to pester, but - well, might one be so bold as to ask : just what - in the name of Aiwass' beard - is 'Bok Chapter 67', RemeaviThantos?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
14/02/2010 3:18 pm  

It's a reference to The Book of Lies. No doubt "Bok" is a mistype go "Bol".

If Aiwass has a beard, he must have grown it since 1904. Mind you, since "Time is not here as There", perhaps not.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/02/2010 3:41 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
"AEternitas" wrote:
Not too get too off topic, but after Crowley's death in 1923(?), just who was he for those remaining years of his physical existence?

Crowley died in 1947. But please tell me you knew that already…

I think that this is perhaps a reference to the attainment of the Ipsissimus grade, which in my opinion has analogues with the Hindu concept of jivanmukta, liberated whilst yet living. The idea is that the vehicle of incarnation continues its existence until its natural term, but awareness or consciousness is elsewhere. There are echoes here of the Magister Templi basking in the City of the Pyramids, leaving behind a little pile of dust.

Is this what you were referring to, AEteritas?

Best wishes,

Michael.

Yes that is what I am referring to.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/02/2010 1:56 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
It's a reference to The Book of Lies. No doubt "Bok" is a mistype go "Bol".

If Aiwass has a beard, he must have grown it since 1904. Mind you, since "Time is not here as There", perhaps not.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Michael,

Thanks for this. The only description of Aiwaz which I happen to remember at the moment is in the Equinox of the Gods, pp. 117-118. From this, for some reason, I've always seen Aiwass with a beard.

I. His stated sartorial inclinations in the source above suggesting “Assyria or Persia” (albeit vaguely – but "not Arab"), and “the face of a savage king”, have always conjured in my mind a beard, although no beard - or lack of one - is specifically mentioned, but then, neither is a nose, a mouth, ears, etc.. Not that all men with beards are necessarily savage, nor kings.

II. Aiwaz is always spoken of in the masculine, and 'appeared' in human form ('a tall dark man in his thirties'). All male humans in their thirties have beards, unless they make the effort to shave them off, so the 'natural' state of affairs is a beard. As is hair on the top of the head, unless it has been removed. Otherwise, we should also assume that as no hair at all was mentioned, that Aiwass is bald as well. 😯

Also- though this is a bit of a long shot: 'savage' taken loosely may suggest 'barbarian' which I believe literally means 'with a beard', though I admit that this is not the word Crowley used.

Or am I simply displaying my ignorance of trends in Assyrian and Persian facial topiary, as well as of another canonical description of Aiwaz which definitively rules out a beard ? Do you know of one?

Best Regards,
N.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
17/02/2010 8:23 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
Not too get too off topic, but after Crowley's death in 1923(?),

Now see, I initially presumed this was a reference to Crowley's fake suicide at the Boca do Inferno, Portugal, with the collusion of Fernando Pessoa, but that didn't occur until 1930...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
17/02/2010 10:46 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
Now see, I initially presumed this was a reference to Crowley's fake suicide at the Boca do Inferno, Portugal, with the collusion of Fernando Pessoa, but that didn't occur until 1930...

This is almost certainly a reference not to the faked suicide, but to the Ipsissimus initiation.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/02/2010 12:18 am  

Perhaps these excerpts from Erik Davis' essay "Calling Cthulu, HP Lovecraft's Magick Realism" might be better suited for a discussion on Chaos Magic in general; but, as he does make some interesting points relevant to a discussion of Grant's 'methods', 1 thought 1 might share some of them here...

Secondary occult sources for Lovecraftian magic include three different "fake" editions of the Necronomicon, a few rites included in Anton LaVey's The Satanic Rituals, and a number of works by the loopy British Thelemite Kenneth Grant. Besides Grant's Typhonian O.T.O. and the Temple of Set's Order of the Trapezoid, magical sects that tap the Cthulhu current have included the Esoteric Order of Dagon, the Bate Cabal, Michael Bertiaux's Lovecraftian Coven, and a Starry Wisdom group in Florida, named after the nineteenth-century sect featured in Lovecraft's "Haunter of the Dark." Solo chaos mages fill out the ranks, cobbling together Lovecraftian arcana on the Internet or freely sampling the Mythos in their chthonic, open-ended (anti-) workings.

This phenomenon is made all the more intriguing by the fact that Lovecraft himself was a "mechanistic materialist" philosophically opposed to spirituality and magic of any kind. Accounting for this discrepancy is only one of many curious problems raised by the apparent power of Lovecraftian magic. Why and how do these pulp visions "work"? What constitutes the "authentic" occult? How does magic relate to the tension between fact and fable? As I hope to show, Lovecraftian magic is not a pop hallucination but an imaginative and coherent "reading" set in motion by the dynamics of Lovecraft's own texts, a set of thematic, stylistic, and intertextual strategies which constitute what I call Lovecraft's Magick Realism...

For Lovecraft, scientific materialism is the ultimate Faustian bargain, not because it hands us Promethean technology (a man for the eighteenth century, Lovecraft had no interest in gadgetry), but because it leads us beyond the horizon of what our minds can withstand. "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the mind to correlate all its contents," goes the famous opening line of "Call of Cthulhu." By correlating those contexts, empiricism opens up "terrifying vistas of reality"—what Lovecraft elsewhere calls "the blind cosmos [that] grinds aimlessly on from nothing to something and from something back to nothing again, neither heeding nor knowing the wishes or existence of the minds that flicker for a second now and then in the darkness".

Lovecraft gave this existentialist dread an imaginative voice, what he called "cosmic alienage". For Fritz Leiber, the "monstrous nuclear chaos" of Azathoth, Lovecraft's supreme entity, symbolizes "the purposeless, mindless, yet all-powerful universe of materialistic belief." But this symbolism isn't the whole story, for, as DMT voyagers know, hyperspace is haunted. The entities that erupt from Lovecraft's inhuman realms seem to suggest that in a blind mechanistic cosmos, the most alien thing is sentience itself. Peering outward through the cracks of domesticated "human" consciousness, a compassionless materialist like Lovecraft could only react with horror, for reason must cower before the most raw and atavistic dream-dragons of the psyche.

Modern humans usually suppress, ignore or constrain these forces lurking in our lizard brain. Mythically, these forces take the form of demons imprisoned under the angelic yokes of altruism, morality, and intellect. Yet if one does not believe in any ultimate universal purpose, then these primal forces are the most attuned with the cosmos precisely because they are amoral and inhuman. In "The Dunwich Horror", Henry Wheeler overhears a monstrous moan from a diabolical rite and asks "from what unplumbed gulfs of extra-cosmic consciousness or obscure, long-latent heredity, were those half-articular thunder-croakings drawn?" The Outside is within...

Lovecraft's fiction expresses a "future primitivism" that finds its most intense esoteric expression in Chaos magic, an eclectic contemporary style of darkside occultism that draws from Thelema, Satanism, Austin Osman Spare, and Eastern metaphysics to construct a thoroughly postmodern magic.

For today's Chaos mages, there is no "tradition". The symbols and myths of countless sects, orders, and faiths, are constructs, useful fictions, "games." That magic works has nothing to do with its truth claims and everything to do with the will and experience of the magician. Recognizing the distinct possibility that we may be adrift in a meaningless mechanical cosmos within which human will and imagination are vaguely comic flukes (the "cosmic indifferentism" Lovecraft himself professed), the mage accepts his groundlessness, embracing the chaotic self-creating void that is himself...

The first occultist to really engage these notions is Aleister Crowley, who shattered the received vessels of occult tradition while creatively extending the dark dream of magic into the twentieth century. With his outlandish image, trickster texts, and his famous Law of Thelema ("Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"), Crowley called into question the esoteric certainties of "true" revelation and lineage, and was the first magus to give occult antinomionism a decidedly Nietzschean twist.

Unfettered, this occult will to power can easily degenerate into a heartless elitism, and the fascist and racist dimensions of both twentieth-century occultism and Lovecraft himself should not be forgotten. But this self-engendering will is more exuberantly expressed as a will to Art. In many ways, the fin de siecle occultism that exploded during Crowley's time was an essentially esthetic esotericism. A good number of the nineteenth-century magicians who inspire us today are the great poets, painters, and writers of Symbolism and decadent Romanticism, many of them dabblers or adepts in Satanism, Rosicrucianism, and hermetic societies. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was infused with artistic pretensions, and Golden Dawn member and fantasy writer Arthur Machen was one of Lovecraft's strongest influences.

But it was Austin Osman Spare who most decisively dissolved the boundary between artistic and magical life. Though working independently of the Surrealists, Spare also based his art on the dark and autonomous eruptions of "subconscious" material, though in a more overtly theurgic context. Today's Chaos magicians are heavily influenced by Spare, and their Lovecraftian rites express this simultaneously creative and nihilistic dissolution. And as postmodern spawn of role-playing games, computers, and pop culture, they celebrate the fact that Lovecraft's secrets are scraped from the barrel of pulp fiction...

Desperate to assimilate Lovecraft into a "tradition", some occultists enter into dubious explanations of mystical influence by disincarnate beings. North gives this Invisible College idea a shamanic twist, asserting that prehistoric Atlantian tribes who survived the flood exercised telepathic influence on people like John Dee, Blavatsky, and Lovecraft. But none of these Lovecraft hierophants can match the delirious splendor of Kenneth Grant. In The Magical Revival, Grant points out more curious similarities between Lovecraft and Crowley: both refer to "Great Old Ones" and "Cold Wastes" (of Kadath and Hadith, respectively); the entity "Yog-Sothoth" rhymes with "Set-Thoth," and Al Azif: The Book of the Arab resembles Crowley's Al vel Legis: The Book of the Law. In Nightside of Eden, Grant maps Lovecraft's pantheon onto a darkside Tree of Life, comparing the mangled "iridescent globes" that occasionally pop up in Lovecraft's tales with the shattered sefirot known as the Qlipoth. Grant concludes that Lovecraft had "direct and conscious experience of the inner planes," the same zones Crowley prowled, and that Lovecraft "disguised" his occult experiences as fiction.

Like many latter-day Lovecraftians, Grant commits the error of literalizing a purposefully nebulous myth. A subtler and more satisfying version of this argument is the notion that Lovecraft had direct unconscious experiences of the inner planes, experiences which his quotidian mind rejected but which found their way into his writings nonetheless. For Lovecraft was blessed with a vivid and nightmarish dream life, and drew the substance of a number of his tales from beyond the wall of sleep.

In this sense Lovecraft's magickal authority is nothing more or less than the authority of dream...

Of course, for Chaos magicians, reality can coherently present itself through any number of self-sustaining but mutually contradictory symbolic paradigms (or "reality tunnels," in Robert Anton Wilson's memorable phrase). Nothing is true and everything is permitted. By emphasizing the self-fulfilling nature of all reality claims, this postmodern perspective creatively erodes the distinction between legitimate esoteric transmission and total fiction...

For the history of the occult is a confabulation, its lies wedded to its genealogies, its "timeless" truths fabricated by revisionists, madmen, and geniuses, its esoteric traditions a constantly shifting conspiracy of influences. The Necronomicon is not the first fiction to generate real magical activity within this potent twilight zone between philology and fantasy.

To take an example from an earlier era, the anonymous Rosicrucian manifestos that first appeared in the early 1600s claimed to issue from a secret brotherhood of Christian Hermeticists who finally deemed it time to come above ground. Many readers immediately wanted to join up, though it is unlikely that such a group existed at the time. But this hoax focused esoteric desire and inspired an explosion of "real" Rosicrucian groups. Though one of the two suspected authors of the manifestos, Johann Valentin Andreae, never came clean, he made veiled references to Rosicrucianism as an "ingenius game which a masked person might like to play upon the literary scene, especially in an age infatuated with everything unusual." Like the Rosicrucian manifestos or Blavatsky's Book of Dzyan, Lovecraft's Necronomicon is the occult equivalent of Orson Welles' radio broadcast of the "War of the Worlds." As Lovecraft himself wrote, "No weird story can truly produce terror unless it is devised with all the care and verisimilitude of an actual hoax."

In Foucault's Pendulum, Umberto Eco suggests that esoteric truth is perhaps nothing more than a semiotic conspiracy theory born of an endlessly rehashed and self-referential literature—the intertextual fabric Lovecraft understood so well. For those who need to ground their profound states of consciousness in objective correlatives, this is a damning indictment of "tradition." But as Chaos magicians remind us, magic is nothing more than subjective experience interacting with an internally consistent matrix of signs and affects. In the absence of orthodoxy, all we have is the dynamic tantra of text and perception, of reading and dream. These days the Great Work may be nothing more or less than this "ingenius game," fabricating itself without closure or rest, weaving itself out of the resplendent void where Azathoth writhes on his Mandelbrot throne.

...the full text may be read at: http://www.techgnosis.com/chunkshow-single.php?chunk=chunkfrom-2005-12-13-1057-0.txt

Fais ce que tu voudras


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 5:52 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

In a letter to W.B. Crow he simply declares that the sole criterion is the acceptance of the Book of the Law.

And who the bloody hell is W.B. Crow? Is that the guy that wrote the New English Qabalah Dictionary? Not to say that that discredits him, but who is he to "declare" something like that? ❓


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
22/06/2010 6:31 am  

Hahah no that would be John Crow.

W.B Crow is a little older than John

Heres the first google hit that mentions him, theres more info if you narrow the search.

http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/bishops.htm


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 5:05 pm  

Thanks for the renewal of an old headache. 🙄

I remember now why my approach to Thelemic religion, when needed at all, is "keep it simple, stupid." 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 4:32 am  
"einDoppelganger" wrote:
Hahah no that would be John Crow.

Ahh...thanks for the reminder. I met John at an OTO party once or twice. A very nice guy. Hadn't thought about it in years. I just thought it a little presumptive for anyone to "declare" what was required, beyond the following of one' True Will, to be a Thelemite.

Andrew


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 5:03 am  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:

I am curious as to what you mean by them not being Thelemic?

I would advise you to go and have another look at Grant's work. Sure, it's very inventive, intriguing etc but it tends to be more about Kenneth Grant and his view and researches, as opposed to working within the confines of Thelema... I would call it something other than 'Thelemic'

I know this is an old post, but I simply can't stand people limiting something that is ultimately creative in nature. How can you possibly say that something is inside or outside of the "confines" of Thelema? I know it is simplistic, but it's not splitting hairs...Thelema holds such an infinite space of possibilities, how can it be confined? People so often criticize Grant because he, quite literally, was not Crowley. It's like criticizing David Foster Wallace because he didn't write like Voltaire!

Andrew


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
23/06/2010 6:12 am  

I simply can't stand people limiting something that is ultimately creative in nature

Whereas I think we are quite on the same page here, it should be noted that the "he" who made the "declaration" regarding AL (cited above) was not Crow but CrowLEY, who DID, in fact, give clarifications for what was-and was not-"Thelemic." We may choose to disagree but the whole "Thelema Thing" originated with AC. He declared the Word, based on his revelations and research, and expounded on it. I personally see Crowley's work in a larger context which is not contexualized by his terminology or "authority." But once you start using the term "Thelemic," Crowley's views have to be contended with, at the least.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 6:35 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

it should be noted that the "he" who made the "declaration" regarding AL (cited above) was not Crow but CrowLEY,

Read the "quote" again. The quote I was quoting was supposedly from Crow...not CrowLEY. I agree that we seem to agree here, but what I quoted was a quote from Crow, not Crowley, and I still contend that neither "Crow", nor anyone else can simply "declare" what is "required" to be a Thelemite. I was not quoting Crowley, I was quoting Crow, who was, and still is, IMHO, wrong on that one. Now, I dare anyone to read this post aloud 3 times fast.... 🙂


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
23/06/2010 7:37 am  
"adav93" wrote:
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

In a letter to W.B. Crow he simply declares that the sole criterion is the acceptance of the Book of the Law.

For what its worth, I think you misread the quote, its Crowley stating that in a letter to Crow...

In a letter toW.B. Crow he(Crowley) simply declares...

Its all moot point really just a simple misreading of an awkward turn of phrase.

Scott


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 3:33 pm  
"adav93" wrote:
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
I am curious as to what you mean by them not being Thelemic?

I would advise you to go and have another look at Grant's work. Sure, it's very inventive, intriguing etc but it tends to be more about Kenneth Grant and his view and researches, as opposed to working within the confines of Thelema... I would call it something other than 'Thelemic.'

I know this is an old post, but I simply can't stand people limiting something that is ultimately creative in nature. How can you possibly say that something is inside or outside of the "confines" of Thelema? I know it is simplistic, but it's not splitting hairs...Thelema holds such an infinite space of possibilities, how can it be confined?

"adav93" wrote:
People so often criticize Grant because he, quite literally, was not Crowley. It's like criticizing David Foster Wallace because he didn't write like Voltaire!

Andrew

Interesting thoughts, adav93, and not uncommon ones, but I do find myself saying "this is not Thelemic" often when I look around myself at the world today. For example, I find slavery to be 'unThelemic.' Further, I find policies that weaken people to be 'unThelemic'; since the Law of Thelema is the Law of the strong, the self-sufficient, the independent, the Law of free men and free women, and so on, as I see it.

As for Grant, true, Grant is not Crowley but, then again, Michael Staley is not Grant. (I asked him about the differences, in relation to Typhonian Order policy, in another thread, but have yet to hear back from him - unless I missed it.)

Back to Thelema for a moment, if we are talking not about true Will (Thelema), per se, but about 'the ultimate source of all true Will,' or something like that, then our parameters broaden considerably, probably too much, imo. I think that a lot of people take Thelema to a such an extreme point of abstraction, and then keep it there, that it ceases to have much definable meaning at all. The ideal, imo, is to be able to shift gears with Thelema, from the concrete to the abstract and back again, as needs be, but not being stuck in one gear or the other.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/06/2010 3:18 am  
"einDoppelganger" wrote:
"adav93" wrote:
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

In a letter to W.B. Crow he simply declares that the sole criterion is the acceptance of the Book of the Law.

For what its worth, I think you misread the quote, its Crowley stating that in a letter to Crow...

In a letter toW.B. Crow he(Crowley) simply declares...

Its all moot point really just a simple misreading of an awkward turn of phrase.

Scott

Hi Scott,

My humble apologies for misreading your quote, which is exactly what I did. Lordie knows I don't like to be misunderstood. On the other hand, I would still say IMHO that since Thelema itself was not necessarily an invention of crowley's, since it is a concept as abstract as the TAO, for example, and that even HE didn't have the right to declare such a thing. I know this is very highly debatable, and I don't have the time to post a full fledged argument here, but nonetheless, you were right, I misread.

Andrew


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
24/06/2010 4:06 am  

Hey adav93 , no worries! It wasn't my quote originally I just thought I'd poke my nose in and try to clarify. You do have a valid argument there which might be worth starting up a thread for. I would be interested in the discussions it generated.

: )

Cheers!
Scott


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
24/06/2010 5:31 am  

Ufa!!! I suspect this topic is over. Michael, you really have a transterrestrial patience. 🙄


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
24/06/2010 5:38 am  
"Rotara481" wrote:
Ufa!!! I suspect this topic is over. Michael, you really have a transterrestrial patience. 🙄

um, ok...Perhaps now it can get back on topic.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/06/2010 6:01 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,

Adav93, Ein,
I would like to point out that I tried opening people up to this line of thought on Lashtal, and was met with heavy resistance. Basically, the idea was that Thelema is as old as humanity, and that Crowley simply brought definition to it. Check the forums for the thread: Thelema, shamanic practice. I agree with both of you and your perspectives.

However, to do my civic duty to bring this back to topic: IMO, LAM is not Hadit. I gather this based on what I've pulled out of Kenneth Grant's work. But you could definitely draw a strong binding between the two. The relationship that clicks for me is that you could approach it similarly to the Aiwass/ Hoor Paar Kraat relationship, in that LAM could be considered a minister of Hadit. Just my observations.

love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/06/2010 4:19 am  
"Rotara481" wrote:
Ufa!!! I suspect this topic is over. Michael, you really have a transterrestrial patience. 🙄

Rot, I'm sorry, you must have "misunderstood" the topic, is most certainly not over. 💡

And what does this thread have to do with Michael's patience? I agree that he has it, but still...

Andrew


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/06/2010 3:34 am  

Dear friends,
Thelema = Will
Interpret the 93 current as you will.
Mysticism, Wythchcraft, High Magick, etc - all are manifestations of the current.
Bend the current as you will, or allow the current to bend you !
Agape = Love.
Never forget that bit !!!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2010 6:02 am  

Camilion,

Thanks for the thoughts...I said Thelema is ultimately creative in nature, and limiting that is wrong. There are two points I want to make here. (1) Slavery could very well be called "Thelemic". That doesn't make it "just" or "right", or most of all "legal", but Thelema is just as vast and "abstract" a theory as the Tao, IMHO. (2) "the ultimate source of all true Will" is just the same as ANY True Will, it's just "ultimate", I guess. True Will is True Will, whether it's mine, yours, or the Universe's, I really think, again, IMHO. Thelema takes no sides, is what I'm saying. Someone or something (government) doing something that weakens people, could very well BE their True Will, it's just that their True Will "appears" to be wrong, unjust, etc. Now, we get into a True Will being something that does not interfere with another True Will. To that, I say that humans,(not the universe, in particular), do not act in perfect accord to scientific probabilities, as the universe (outside of humans), tends to do, having a Will to make choices that often follow their ego's lead, tending to mess things up a bit. It is a muddy topic, but Thelema is something absolutely as abstract as the Tao, again, for example.

Andrew


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/12/2010 4:03 am  

I see Thelema as a living essence that "manifest" daily, from brushing teeth to the practices that are according to your Innermost Nature so that It can give an deep expansion of understanding of your magickal universe. Thelema is from my point of view, Perception, Consciousness, Clarity and Intuition and so on. Observe the signs that life shows us every day, where even the actions mundane becomes sacred. Thelema is coping with the difficulties of daily life, knowing that every human being has a level of understanding of things and know them to respect that. Thelema for me is simplicity, although many people try to wrap it with glamor and complexity. Thelema, fortunately has several names and various stages of understanding. So the Valentinian teaching century ago on the Three Levels of Perception of the world and of yourself. Thelema are your mind, word and action, everytime in everywhere.
Many people talk so much about Thelema, their views are true for each one, and that's how things are. But Thelema "exacts a price" for all: Understanding. Here's what takes a truth becomes a lie. This is what leads you to interpret the EVERY phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with your soul, I guess. But these words are my viewpoint of my magickal universe, nothing more.
Pardon pour mes mots.


ReplyQuote
Page 5 / 5
Share: