The discussion between you and Ian is the culmination of a misunderstanding starting from the opening post by Los. Crowley never said “knowledge is impossible”. So the subsequent splitting of the term “knowledge” into absolute knowledge vs. real world knowledge and all discussions arising therefrom are based on a false premise. If anyone truly thinks Crowley meant “knowledge is impossible”, they are going to have difficulty comprehending his last paragraph on the chapter on Knowledge in Little Essays. For those blessed readers who actually read Crowley's words and apply it to their real world lives, here is their reward:

And the gain thereof to the Adept? Not the pure gold, certes, nor the Stone of the Philosophers! But yet a very virtuous weapon of much use on the Way; also, a mighty comfort to the human side of him; for the sweet fruit that hangs upon the Tree that makes men Gods is just this sun-ripe and soft-bloom-veiled globe of Knowledge.

(Little Essays, 64-65)

No, it isn't. That discussion has and had nothing to do with Crowley.

Shows what you know!

"Knowledge is, moreover, an impossible conception. All propositions come ultimately back to 'A is A'." - Magick in Theory and Practice

Only if they were based on a reading of Crowley. Which, for the umpteenth time, they weren't. If you'd even read Los's first post, you'd have seen him referring to another thread on this subject, where the same idea was being discussed by the same people before anybody even mentioned Little Essays Toward Truth.

As I said, you don't seem to have the foggiest idea what I've been talking about - you're way out there in your own little space somewhere. I'm starting to wonder if you've been reading this thread at all.

Unbelievable.

Knowledge means Daath – you know that right? And the crown of Ruach reaches Daath. What Crowley refers to is Knowledge/Ruach being based on duality. The very fact that it operates on duality means the oppositions cancel themselves out. This does not mean perception, insight, intuition or understanding is impossible. It means something based on duality can never capture what “is”. Of course you’re free to think he means “knowledge is impossible”, but logically speaking, all his writings should remain incomprehensible to you. This entire thread would be pointless as well.

Your response inescapably reminds me of some of your other bizarre comments on this forum that hint of an extreme solipsism. I’m starting to understand why you actually believed you attained 8=3 when all your comments indicate you haven’t moved from Assiah.

Your pitiful failure to retract your claim that "Crowley never said 'knowledge is impossible'" is well noted. All you had to do was to read it. But that's evidently not your strong suit, is it?

"Daath" doesn't actually exist - you know that, right?

Yet again you demonstrate that you don't have even the tiniest idea what any of this discussion has been about.

Oh, I see! So when he said "Knowledge is, moreover, an impossible conception", what he actually meant was "Knowledge is, moreover, not an impossible conception"? Genius! It's all so much clearer now! There was me thinking we should actually read Crowley to find out what he meant, but all we had to do all along was to just make up a bunch of silly shit instead!

Wherever would we be without people like you around to set us straight, eh?

That's great for you. Now run along, kid.

To be clear, Erwin and I haven't reached any accommodation on the central point that Erwin has been trying to make for some time, although we do agree on some related issues; but I shall reply to Erwin's posts to me later today, given time.

Erwin

Your suspicious quote should appear in Chapter 0, The Magical Theory of the Universe, MTP, page 145.

(I say “suspicious” because I cannot recall Crowley ever giving the perfect symmetry of A is A. He always phrased it as S=P, to denote duality that is cancelled upon analysis – which has been my point all along about Knowledge being a “false idea”. Further when you’re dealing with a structural center or paradox, any misreading of its details has ramifications for the entire structure. That means, if you really think Crowley meant “A is A”, without considering the hierarchical relationship between duality and non-duality, to conclude knowledge is impossible, you cannot know where the boundaries lie between your own mind and others. Or whether others really exist. It’s all just perception for you. You cannot know, in any sense of the word, whether I’m a Lashtal member or an intrusive “voice” in your mind. This would suggest your mind is easily confused, perhaps explaining your antipathy toward the occult)

Well, I’ve got bad news for you. Your quote doesn’t exist in MTP.

But I did track down your quote to this link:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/chap0.htm

If you read that online chapter carefully, you will see some insane commentator has inserted their own observations (in italics) throughout Crowley’s text. That's where your quote came from. Crowley never said what you ascribed to him.

And while we’re on the topic, let’s deal with another one of your falsehoods:

I never said “yet more inane babble”. It doesn’t exist on this thread. So, once again, you’re putting words into my mouth. This is not a mistake. You had to deliberately quote my name and insert that phrase to make your childish remark. This is in direct contravention of Lashtal forum guidelines:

Offensive or abusive behaviour is not permitted: contributions must be constructive and polite. Unlawful or objectionable content is not permitted: harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, homophobic, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable items are not acceptable.

I would imagine Paul has better things to do with his time than hunt down this kind of abuse. But it's more than clear your presence on Lashtal is degrading this forum.

I've been away for a little while (celebrating the Equinox), and I've been delighted to see the development of the conversation between Erwin and Ian. I only have time to respond to one brief point:

Absolute knowledge may in fact be impossible because absolute knowledge probably doesn't exist. If we can all agree that there's no such thing as absolute knowledge, then it's pointless to talk about it; demonstrating that something that doesn't exist is impossible doesn't actually demonstrate anything at all, and it doesn't tell us anything about what does exist.

And certainly, I accept that there may be "other modes of apprehension," but in order to claim that such modes of apprehension reveal something that is true, it would be necessary to demonstrate this through reason and evidence.

Oh, and incidentally, I titled the thread "Crowley and Knowledge" because Crowley's position on knowledge (or one part of that position, anyway) was my jumping off point for some of my thoughts -- I didn't mean that the discussion had to be limited to Crowley, and, as we can see, it has not been.

And speaking of Crowley:

You do realize that the online version presents Crowley's footnotes in italics, right?

No, I didn't realize it. And I'm more than happy to admit that I'm wrong. Apologies to Erwin.

It will be interesting to see how this thread develops on the A is A principle, because that interpretation contradicts everything else Crowley wrote.

As Los points out, that's Crowley's footnote. As we've seen several times here and other places, when quoting Crowley it's always better to refer to the original texts than the online versions, since many of the latter contain numerous errors. Either way, I accept your apology.

My dismissal of your "inane babble" was precisely to censure you for contributions which are not "constructive and polite". Several times on this thread - including this very post - you've decided, for reasons best known to yourself, to divert from the topic of the thread and descend into some weird and obsessive personal rant against me. Even those portions of your responses which you at least purport to be dealing with the subject of the thread actually do nothing of the kind, and merely veer off onto some irrelevant tangent. "Inane babble" is therefore an accurate description of the bulk of your contributions to this thread which are almost entirely non-constructive, and it's perfectly appropriate for me to censure you for it. If you want to talk about people "degrading the forum", I'd suggest looking in your own direction before you start criticising others.

Los - "If we can all agree that there's no such thing as absolute knowledge, then it's pointless to talk about it".

If we all agreed that there was no such thing as absolute knowledge then we'd be creating a 'consensus truth'. Consensus truth (as the Copernician revolution showed us quite clearly) is fallible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_by_consensus

You’re free to censure me and call my comments “inane babble” as long as you stand behind your words. When Los pointed out my error I had no problem acknowledging it and apologizing. But quoting my name and inserting words into my mouth that I didn’t say is deception, pure and simple. That’s the degradation of the forum.

I reread that footnote you cited in context of the surrounding text. Here it is:

We know infinitesimally little of the material universe. Our detailed knowledge is so contemptibly minute, that it is hardly worth reference, save that our shame may spur us to increased endeavour. Such knowledge

It’s important that Crowley wrote all propositions “come ultimately back to” A is A in that it implies a process of duality moving toward nonduality. If the A is A proposition were immediately self-evident and Daath does not exist in any sense at all, we would not be wasting time communicating with others. Science would be an illusion. But even you don’t believe Crowley’s comment “Knowledge is an impossible conception” actually means that it is impossible to know anything. Neither does Crowley.

What Crowley is referring to by Knowledge is something very specific and limited. I contend he is referring to the Ruach’s placement in Daath. By stating Knowledge is an impossible conception, he does not mean that we cannot know anything, but rather it is impossible for the duality-conditioned intellect to grasp nonduality. The only person free from duality and subjective considerations would be an 8=3 and above. Moreover if Ruach is subjugated to Neschamah, one must question whether we can really use reason to verify the reality of our intuitions or whether the opposite is true, that is, we first have intuitions and then use reason to justify this "gut instinct".

Don't be so obtuse. What appears on your screen - i.e. "tai wrote: ...more inane babble..." - is perfectly true. You did write more inane babble.

Now, for the love of pointy shoes, stop trying to distract from the thread with every single post you make.

That's exactly what he means. Again, what you are attempting to say here is that "by stating 'Knowledge is an impossible conception', he does not mean that 'Knowledge is an impossible conception'." The problem is that he is plainly stating that it is, and, moreover, that what he means by "knowledge" in this context is "our detailed knowledge...of the material universe". You can "contend" he's saying something else as much as you like, but fortunately for us, we have his own plain and simple words to go by to get to the actual facts.

If you want to "interpret" Crowley's words - or anybody's words, for that matter - you have to start with what he actually wrote and go from there, justifying and explaining word choices in terms of context and usage in similar contexts. You can't just pretend that he said something else entirely and expect anyone to take you seriously, and you can't just "contend" that he means what you would like him to mean. If one were to do that, one would be babbling. If you want to claim that he really meant this or that, then you're going to have to provide some relevant evidence - you can't just talk about what you think "all propositions come back to A is A" means and blithely assert that Crowley meant the same thing.

If you want to argue that Crowley meant what you claim he meant, then make and present a case for it, and then we can all look at your case and figure out whether or not it's sound. Right now all you have is unsupported opinion, and you're going to need more than that if you're really interested in having the kind of discussion you appear to want to have.

How about the fact Crowley spent his entire life producing a large body of writing?
Or the fact that he goes into detail describing the Supernal grades instead of maintaining silence?
Or the fact that even after a person attains to Kether and realizes Hadit, there are still other stars in space – that is, attainment to the Supernals does not mean absolute solipsism, but the very opposite?
Or the fact that he used the Tree of Life as a map for attainment?

How about something that speaks to what he actually wrote on that particular occasion instead? Or even, perhaps, something he wrote on the actual subject of knowledge, since that's what you're talking about? "I must be right because he talked about the Supernals once" isn't going to convince many people - certainly not me.

Your objections are irrelevant. The very fact Crowley wrote and published his works for an audience contradicts his statement that "Knowledge is an impossible conception". If you can't recognize the truth of the overwhelming evidence I just cited, specific quotes won't convince you.

To someone whose not interested in finding out what Crowley meant, sure.

So - maybe he contradicted himself, then?

Well, excuse me if I'm not blown away by your devastatingly sharp analysis. If this is the kind of sloppy and arbitrary way you've approached understanding Crowley, then there's really no point dealing with you, since you're not going to have anything sensible to say on the subject.

You're just wasting my time, now. At least nobody can say that I didn't give you a chance, that I didn't at least try to get some sense out of you, but I guess some people are just hopeless cases. Feel free to go back to whatever you were doing, without feeling the need to clamour for my attention all the time.

It's worth looking at these purported "other modes of apprehension" for a moment, because it ties in with this idea of "ultimate reality" that such "modes" are hypothesised to apprehend.

In a sense, we already know what "ultimate reality" is. If we ask "what is the 'ultimate reality' of a cat?" for instance, then we already basically know the answer: it's little subatomic particles whizzing around. Even if we don't have the much-vaunted "theory of everything" yet, we can make a reasonable guess that what it will reveal is pretty much more of the same. Even if we never find it, we can still make that reasonable guess.

Now, this is obviously not what people of a mystical inclination mean when they talk about "ultimate reality", but the idea that there is an "ultimate reality" beyond this is definitely not an idea that should go unchallenged.

There's a passage in The Lord of the Rings where Gandalf is describing Gollum:

"But as he lowered his eyes, he saw far above the tops of the Misty Mountains, out of which the stream came. And he thought suddenly: 'It would be cool and shady under those mountains. The Sun could not watch me there. The roots of those mountains must be roots indeed; there must be great secrets buried there which have not been discovered since the beginning....

"All the 'great secrets' under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering."

I think that this talk of some kind of "ultimate reality" is much like this. Gollum looked at the Misty Mountains and reasoned, by a kind of magical thinking, that mountains are old, and their roots go deep, and since roots are at the beginning of things, there must be "great secrets buried there". In reality, all he found was the same kind of stuff that's on the surface: rocks, and pools, and regular stuff like that, just in a darker place. In the same way, mystics look at the universe and think there must be some kind of "ultimate reality" underlying it all, when all there really is is the same old universe we see every day, just in a greater level of granularity.

Back in the days when the argument from design was the best one we had to explain the origins of complex life, it seemed reasonable to some to conclude that the existence of complex and intelligent life must suggest some kind of designer, or at least some kind of "transcendental realm" where it all came from. These days, we know better, that once chance results in the creation of some rudimentary molecules which have the ability to replicate themselves then the plain old laws of physics in the context of scarce resources makes the evolution of complex life almost inevitable, given enough time. There needn't be any more to it than this - "It is all about the survival of self-replicating instructions for self-replication." It is likely that some similar explanation will eventually be found for the universe itself, for how simple things - or even no things at all - can, through the plain old laws of physics, result in the universe we see around us.

It seems reasonable to strongly suspect that the physical universe is all there is, and that there really is no "ultimate reality" beyond "what stuff is made of" and "how stuff works". In other words, that those "little subatomic particles whizzing around" are "ultimate reality", and that there is no "ultimate reality" beyond them. Thus, even if we were to have "absolute knowledge", and to be able to perceive "ultimate reality", there really is no reason to suspect that we'd perceive anything other than the effects of plain old little subatomic particles whizzing around. Therefore even if we were to gain access to some kind of "other mode of apprehension", there is no reason at all to suppose that we'd apprehend anything other than basically just more of the same, only in greater detail.

The very idea that there is some kind of "ultimate reality" beyond this is, I think, a purely religious idea, and a religious idea so vague that not only is there no reason to suggest that such a thing exists, but that there is absolutely nothing at all which can be said about what it might be even if its existence were to be postulated. Thus, when we ask "what is a cat, really?", with the inherent implication that there is some kind of "ultimate catness" which can be known, we have a statement which is not only entirely imaginary, but which is actually utterly meaningless. The search for this kind of "ultimate truth" or "ultimate reality" is therefore no different from the search for the legendary invisible pink unicorn. It's the kind of thing that folks of a mystical inclination have been led to believe is there waiting to be discovered, but which they've apparently never stopped to ever think about. My assertion is that there is no type of "knowledge" or "reality" beyond "what stuff is made of" and "how stuff works", and that the idea that there is is nothing by an idle fantasy.

Even were it not for the above, the plain fact seems to be that our consciousness, reasoning faculties, perceptive faculties, and knowledge faculties, have evolved as a result of natural selection. Since natural selection itself is merely a result of "what physically happens", there's no reason at all to suppose that the process would give rise to any faculties that don't deal with "what physically happens". What would the survival benefits of such an "other mode of apprehension be"? What evolutionary purpose would it have served in our mammalian and piscene ancestors? And why, even if such an "other mode of apprehension" had evolved, it is so apparently difficult for us to access? We don't have to try to see, or to hear, or to imagine, or to think, so how and why would an entirely "other mode of apprehension" - that is apparently only available to ineffectual mystics and to lunatics who like to dress up as wizards - have evolved? All kinds of animals have slightly different senses than we do - such as the "sonar" of bats, and the ability of insects to see ultra-violet light - but these are merely variations on a theme, just more finely tuned ways of perceiving the exact same things we perceive: physical particles, waves, vibrations, and the like.

Thus, the difference between "real world knowledge" and "absolute knowledge" - if we were capable of having such a thing - would just be the degree of detail to which we can perceive the physical workings of the universe. There's nothing "beyond" that, no "ultimate beingness" of a completely different order that we could apprehend, even if we possessed one of these "other modes of apprehension". There's no deep "reality" out there that's going to suddenly address our existential worries - there's just the potential for more detailed knowledge about what stuff is and how it works. The idea that the universe is constructed on principles which are specially made to address our own existential concerns is outrageously absurd. We can, through various practices, attain to states of mind where we are not clouded by the kinds of re-entrant mental activity that compels us to compare the world with a favoured ideal, or which causes us to pay more attention to our thoughts than to reality, but there is no deep "ultimate reality" out there of a completely different order which we can attain to. It's nothing but a regular old empty religious myth. The only things out there to be "apprehended" are the same old physical things we apprehend with the senses we already have, and while the potential may be there to perceive them better, the potential is not there to perceive some other type of "reality" altogether, because there is no other type of "reality". It's merely a false idea invented by the human imagination.

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

You have written voluminously,
elaborating your comprehension of Thelema,
with an above average, and technically adequate erudition:
and still, something lacks.
But it is far from a little something!
It lacks for what I can only describe as Vigorous Beauty!
It is un-dynamic, and lacks the Lustrous Light of illumination.

You present a dull and soul-less picture of Thelema,
by having stripped away all colours from it's Starry Spectrum,
so that you, might paint some monochromatic parody,
using only a single hue from your palette of limited perspective.

I have read postings by members of this site,
not quite so adept in their use of the English language,
yet they have easily managed to present Thelema
as the Glad Wonderful Word, your words fail to convey.

I personally feel that you have made, and continue to make
an absolute mockery,
of the Glory that is Our way---The Legacy of The Beast 666.

That you have used his own words quite craftily, to uphold
your denotation of what is, and what is not Thelema---
with little regard for the scope, range, complexity,
and above all,
Intense Majesty---of the multi-layered meanings thereof.

And yet, I will not be so ignorant as to proclaim
that you are not a Thelemite, and know not you will:
For even you Erwin,
have a crucial place
in the Light, Life, Love, and Liberty, that is Thelema.

Love is the law, love under will.

The word you are looking for to denote what is lacking is "bullshit".

Personally, I struggle to think of a more "dull and soul-less picture" than a universe where superpowerful "praetnernatural beings" mince about helping poor mortals to locate our lost cats, writing us some bad poetry, and providing us with inane number games that they call "wisdom". I'll take the "Intense Majesty" of the actual existing universe any day.

Ah, yes. We wouldn't want to use Crowley's own words to uphold a denotation of what something he invented is or is not, now would we? Making up a bunch of random bullshit that seems to a few nutcases to possess "Intense Majesty" but is totally contrary to everything he wrote on the subject is clearly a far more sensible and productive way to proceed, eh?

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

As I said, people like you are part of the problem.

. . . Aw c'mon Erwin, please don't pick on the 'Bad Poets' now!~~~ & I think that you like "the problem". You even helped Alrah with Math. That was sweet 🙂

Horemakhet 😀

That’s odd. You used to claim 8=3 yet deny the reality of the astral plane. But everyone knows A.A. gradework requires proficiency in astral projection and mastery of Yetzirah before working toward the HGA. After attaining to KCHGA, you're supposed to bind the Four Crown Princes of Hell and have them swear allegiance to the HGA. Then you should have all kinds of magickal powers – as I understand it, the collective unconscious should be at your disposal. All this is long before attempting the unthinkable of crossing the Abyss to claim 8=3. Mind you, this is what Crowley wrote. So are you saying that you have all these accomplishments under your belt?

Spot the contradiction.

I agree. Read up on the A.A. gradework.

What's "odd" is your bizarre personal obsession with me, your repeated desperate and pitiful demands for my attention, and your persistently disruptive and malignant influence on these forums. This is the home of the Aleister Crowley Society. If you cannot overcome your obsessive need to ask me simpering fanboy questions, then set up an Erwin Hessle Fan Club website of your own and ask them there.

Which you clearly don't.

Tell us again how Aleister Crowley's footnotes in Magick in Theory and Practice were written by "some insane commentator", and then go back and rethink which one of us needs to "read up". You're an absolute embarrassment.

That's interesting - Erwin, do you claim to be Magister Templi?

Again, this is not the home of the Erwin Hessle Fan Club. If you're interested in what I have to say on subjects other than the legacy of Aleister Crowley, including this one, then my own web site is the place you need to be going.

This is indeed the home of the ACS and it just so happens much of what you say is at odds with much of what Crowley wrote. It’s a striking contradiction to deny the reality of the astral plane and claim 8=3, since according to Crowley the latter is predicated on the reality of the former .

This gets back to my point pages ago where I said people talk about the same Tree but have very different conceptions about what any of it means. After all, this thread is about knowledge and you and Los were advocating the use of reason, right? I’m using my reason to analyze the information being presented by you and something is not adding up. The logical conclusion is either Crowley is a fraud or you’re a fraud.

I actually do understand why you might think you're an 8=3. Your central point of subjugating reason to observation of the real world correctly mirrors the relationship between Ruach and Neschamah. But it's when you start denouncing the astral plane and magick that you betray you're still in Assiah.

A is A is the formula of insanity, signifying the crossing the Abyss. That's why Crowley stated all things in the Abyss are appearances that are Insane Delusions [italics and capitalization not mine].

We've already established that your familiarity with Crowley's works is practically nil, so you might as well give up on the idea that you're capable of identifying any "striking contradiction". For instance, you're clearly blissfully unaware that he said this (emphasis added):

The "logical conclusion" is that you really ought to stop digging your hole any deeper than it already is, and slink away quietly, before you achieve the "unthinkable" of making an even bigger spectacle of yourself than you already have.

No. Much of what he says is at odds with much of what you think Crowley meant. Erwin has backed up his statements with actual quotes from Crowley's own work, so your comment above is demonstrably false.

Another logical conclusion is that your analysis of the information both Crowley and Erwin presented to you was faulty to begin with. Have you considered the possibility that maybe you've misunderstood or misinterpreted some of the things you've read?

For example, this is completely off:

The only - only - statement above that is at all accurate is the need for some kind of mastery of Yetzirah. But that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Mastering the 'mental plane' does not mean wallowing deeper and deeper into imaginary fantasyland wherein you hope to one day attain "all kinds of magickal powers". It means learning to perceive actual reality, and learning to distinguish between what you experience (reality) and your interpretations of those experiences (mental projection of reality).

Yes, everyone interprets the Tree differently. But the Tree is an established map that can be used to describe particular processes and experiences. It's not a bunch of LEGO pieces you rearrange to conform to whatever story you want to tell yourself. For a Master, the 'world of formation' within is a reflection of actual reality.

I like how certain members have created a space where we question. However, I do not like it when anyone attacks a new & avidly sincere student to these forums; & especially when an ex moderator steps up in defense & that noble action is somehow lost in the fray. That Was a sad day on this site, & a "new low"- but, there was a culprit. & I bet he can play a great game of Chess.

It always makes me laugh when these people assert that "accomplishing the Two Critical Tasks", to which "the fact of [one's] incarnation itself proves that [one] has taken the Oath which entitle to attain", can only be achieved by people who follow an utterly arbitrary program invented by Victorian freemasons in the late nineteenth century - and supplemented by Crowley with methods he never used himself - especially when Crowley himself clearly pointed out the exact opposite. What do they think people did before the Golden Dawn came along? A lot of folks have some exceptionally peculiar ideas about this stuff, and it all comes down to not paying attention to reality, as you say.

What I want to know is what people did before "reality"?- Still picking their noses, & waiting for something exciting, probably. ~~~ That's when you come in, man.

So you're suggesting that there were people around before there was reality?

Yes, I suggested it. I am so ashamed now. The best thing for everyone is if you just lock me up right now, Erwin. Like you say: The enemy needs to be stamped out at every opportunity.

As a mission statement (even if this is just a reasonably close paraphrase of it), this is a very curious goal. For the admirers of one of the elements of Aleister Crowley's total makeup to turn against the admirers of the other elements and seek to suppress or eliminate those elements of Crowley's legacy from contention for domination over the overall Crowley 'cultus,' and over anything that might grow from Crowlean origins in the future.

Have you ever read "The Islanders" by Idries Shah? 🙂

An apposite fable. 😆 Thanks for sharing.

An interesting analogy, alrah.

A truly gargantuan effort at rationalization is required to narrow a view of Crowley to only one of his rather complex set of facets. This can only be accomplished by either gross ignorance (highly unlikely in this case, but common in other perversions of the Crowlean worldview) or blatant dishonesty. The only reasonably accurate view of Crowley, obviously, is one which is as complete as possible, a holistic view of him, if you will. The challenge for each of those truly interested in the man is to attempt to grasp at once the apparently contradictory elements of his makeup, rather than to select the one we fancy most and pretend that the others don't exist, or worse, try to convince others that they don't exist.

Nowhere in any of Erwins writings have I heard him deny AL II,9 -"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy".

Therefore I do not find Erwins understanding of Crowleys worldview to be dishonest. To me it seems he is like one insisting after the Zen tea ceremony that "the tea drinker is simply a tea drinker, the bowl is a bowl, and the tea is tea!" And of course he is correct.

Have you heard this person affirm such a thing?

Oh yes! Or something so close as to be practically indistinguishable. Just yesterday (albeit while beating someone with a stick) he said on his blog:

"If you want to see some “majesty”, then take a look up at the stars on a clear night sometime. Take a look at NASA’s gallery of images from the Hubble Space Telescope. Watch the sun set over the ocean. Go spend a few days camping out in the mountains by yourself, living continuously amongst the elements, cooking on an open fire, spending some time in nature. Go visit the Lake District, or the Grand Canyon, or the Sahara Desert. For that matter, visit Stonehenge, any of the Welsh castles, the Abbey of Westminster, or Notre Dame Cathedral. Go for a walk in the woods early in the morning after a few days of rain. Get down on the ground like Dawkins’ old teacher and see what’s down there. The possibilities are literally endless."

🙂

That's very nice, but it does not undo the deliberate mischaracterization of Crowley as a pure rationalist, which he was not. I am certainly not going to engage a dual of Crowley quotes to demonstrate this, I don't have the time to waste on such an insignificant proposition, but the majority of the knowledgeable membership of the AC Society understand Crowley better than this.

The idea that any human being can be a 'pure rationalist' is just silly. I don't think anyone has argued that Crowley should be put on such a lofty and unattainable pedestal. Was Crowley a rational type of man? Sure. Who'd deny that? I'm glad we aren't going to be debating straw men! 🙂

As an activity humans engage in, defining ‘knowledge’ tends toward infinite regress, as there is always someone who requires further precepts before accepting given conclusions. We may choose to agree upon Practical Criterion for knowledge proven by its applicability, but this is of an order different than that of Knowledge composed on a cosmological scale. The former demonstrates its use in day-to-day activities, while the latter imbues One’s universe with meanings obtained from the formulation of broader context: cognitive maps whose inspiration run the gamut from applied science to mytho-poesis, reason to imagination.

Ataraxia (ἀταραξία), according to some skeptics, is the pleasure attained through sincere ambivalence regarding dogmatic concerns - a way of making peace with the impossibility of Knowledge without denying the applicability of knowledge. One may appreciate the utility of such an approach when immersed within a culturally diverse environment, but is this merely blissful ignorance predicated on suspending the act of judgment in perpetuity? If the only other option were intolerance (ethnic, religious, intellectual or otherwise) then we might make a case for remaining stupid and happy. Yet, to truly attain a sincere ambivalence demands more than burying one’s head in the sand - an approach more akin to apathy than ataraxia - it requires direct experience of those trances which ‘destroy all sense of duality.’

To attempt description of such dissolution runs contrary to the experience itself as the act of description struggles to rationalize a mode of awareness where Reason breaks down - besieged by all contradictions inherent in each proposition to such degree that every effort to maintain a logical grip on the phenomenal world produces the very thing best suited to undermine it with greatest immediacy. To suffer this is the greatest challenge anyOne ever faces for it risks their very hold upon self identity.

Where a11 sephirot are One, Knowledge cannot exist. Truth, perhaps, but not of a sort that could ever convince another who has not yet beheld it themselves - a Truth which allows for ataraxia with ambivalence most sincere.

My own impression is of Light being projected into Time from its’ point of contact with a hyper-dimensional PortaL coinciding with the Eye of our mutual Illumination...

...but that’s impossible, isn’t it?

127 : 73

. . A man of many faces. & a Genius & Master. To me, he is the high priest of Egypt, & Liber Al was the license for everyone to raise that religion back from the dead, & give it new life. That was his supreme spell, & he knew that it would happen. He knew that he was chosen to facilitate it. He also developed societies based on an old trust. So that a student of his would come out 'as tough as nails' & ready for a challenge.

93
"I began to see that one might become a Master of the Temple without necessarily knowing any technical Magick or mysticism at all. It is merely a matter of convenience to be able to represent any expression as x + y = 0. The equation may be solved without words. Many people may go through the ordeals and attain the degrees of the A.'. A.'. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. The universe is, in fact, busy with nothing else, for the relation of the Order to it is that of the man of science to his subject. He writes CaCl2 + H2SO4 = CaSO4 + 2HCL for his own convenience and that of others, but the operation was always in progress independently."

i am curious as to where the above quote comes from?

93 93/93
Petros

WHat exactly do you mean by methods Crowley never used? Which methods? ANd how exactly are the techniques employed by the Golden Dawn "arbitrary" in any way? Crowley must have seen some kind of value in these things, in fact he did. Please elaborate.

Tai does have some confused ideas about the AA, she seems to be mixing techniques up with those laid out in the Book of Abramelin and so forth, but maybe you could, I don't know, offer the person some insight instead of arrogant criticisms.

On another note Crowley wrote from several different perspectives, whether as Baphomet X, Frater P, etc, etc, etc. Different satges in his initiation brought different viewpoints and perspectives on just about everything, so that when it's all said to have been written under the single persona of "Crowley" it may seem as if a series of contradictions.
So to one reader, a certain perspective that Crowley takes will have more relevancy than a later one may depending on the readers level of personal and spiritual development or initiation. ALl this nonsense of Crowley said this no Crowley said this lets point out a million obscure passages etc etc all just seems to amount to so much egotistical masturbation.
Really I guess what I am saying is well, how do some of you have all this time on your hands? Don'y you have jobs? Families? Work out routines or something else to damn well do? I can't even take the time to read some of these three thousand word quote by quote refutations, much less respond to any of them!

sorry...just had to let that out of my system before going forth.

Sorry AEternitas, she is a he. I was referring to Abramelin with reference to the task of a specific grade in the AA. Since the observation of the "confused ideas" came from you, why don't you explain instead of Erwin?

I just did. You didn’t even read my quote you cited. Here it is again: “It’s a striking contradiction to deny the reality of the astral plane and claim 8=3, since according to Crowley the latter is predicated on the reality of the former”.

Nothing in that Confessions quote invalidates the contradiction I pointed out in your position. Rather, it confirms it. You have been denying the reality of the astral plane while claiming a grade in Azitluth. This has nothing to do with proficiency in astral projection. It has to do with the correct map of the inner planes – Assiah > Yetzirah > Briah > Atziluth. That’s why Crowley writes many people may go through the “ordeals and attain the degrees” of the A.'. A.'. without ever hearing that such an Order exists. “Ordeals and degrees” means the hierarchy of the inner planes are the same for anyone who works through them, regardless of whether they are in the A.A. or attaining naturally. Crowley never stated these planes do not exist. Anyone who starts to work through the inner planes will encounter Yetzirah. Otherwise one must conclude that the person never moved beyond Assiah. When you deny the reality of the astral plane, the unspoken implication is that you’ve mastered Yetzirah before attaining to Atziluth. Otherwise how could you deny it in such strong terms? But the truth is you have never acknowledged the reality of the astral plane or displayed any tolerance toward people who talk about this plane. On the contrary you have denied it and continually trashed people who talk about astral visions. But at least those poor souls who talk about them have experienced the plane of Yetzirah, which is one step further than Assiah and a step toward understanding.

Your one insight from which you derive all your arrogance is this: a Magister Templi has stripped away all subjective processes veiling the mind and sees the world objectively and bases his reasoning on direct observation of the real world.

Now if a Magister Templi has never directly observed Moscow, does that mean Moscow is a subjective delusion? If you say, no, because others have seen Moscow and you reason from that fact, then ask why you deny others who say they have observed creatures on the astral. There is a very good reason why you trash them, but it has nothing to do with what you think. That is, just because Erwin has not experienced something does not mean others have not.

That Confessions quote does show one need not work within the formal structure of the A.A. to attain. However there are sound reasons to work within this structure – the main one being the teacher/student relationship and fulfillment of concrete tasks for each grade prevent a person from deluding themselves on their attainment. Technical proficiency in magick is not in and of itself important. But it does demonstrate that one has in fact mastered certain planes. For example anyone can claim they are a virtuoso on the violin. But it is only when they play that they prove they are not lying.

No, Mika, my comment is not demonstrably false.

Sure. Just scroll back a few pages.

No, it means exactly what I wrote. I was referring to the A.A. gradework and specific tasks assigned.

I have no problem with the above as long as it’s understood your comments refer to attainment in general and not the specific A.A. gradework.

I do have one question for you though: if mastery means distinguishing between what one’s experience (reality) and interpretations of those experiences (mental projection of reality), do masters ever admit they are wrong? That is, if a master misreads information on a page and are informed of it by others, do they ever say “Sorry, I made a mistake” or does strictly adhering to the experience of how one read something at a particular moment, even if wrong, become an excuse to never admit being wrong?

Ok we’re in agreement here.

Nothing in the AA grade material that I am familiar with, and I think I've looked over all the known documents a few times, mentions anything about binding the Four Demonic Princes or what have you. That concept is from the book of Abramelin, so obviously if you chose that grimoire as your method of attaining to the K&C of your HGA, then you would probably follow this avenue, it's just that it isn't a required action in the AA.