October 9, 2012 at 8:56 am #76733
In order not to change the subject, my guess would be that the majority of Mike Walker’s students, if they knew of his claim to be AC’s son, believed it, at least at the beginning. I would further suppose that to those for whom this was important, it was a major part of their acceptance that there was some authority to his system. In other words, for those of his students who knew anything about Aleister Crowley, Mike Walker’s claim to be his son imparted an additional authority to his teachings.
I imagine those who remained his friends perhaps gave up that belief, and just liked the man. Perhaps former students also stopped believing the Crowley’s son story as unnecessary, when and if the system began working for them.
I have no idea of the number of his adherents or how much the earliest ones knew about Crowley, so I have no way of knowing if my guess is correct. But to me, it just seems that Walker would not have promoted this story about himself unless it added allure, which means that some people believed it. It had currency and some people must have been attracted to it.
So, to get back to Crowley’s unverifiable claims, I do in fact think that the majority of people who become students/followers of Crowley, DO believe, or at least tacitly accept the plausibility, of his claims about the Book of the Law being dictated by a praeterhuman intelligence, the Secret Chiefs, the Invisible College, previous lives, etc. I know I did, and I can’t say I know anyone who calls himself a Thelemite who didn’t. In other words, I don’t know anyone who decided to take up the practices of the AA or to become a Thelemic magician with the attitude that “I don’t believe a word of it, I’ll just test it to see if it works.” There has to be some level of wonder, of mystery, of “maybe it’s really TRUE!”, to be able to stick with the programme through the tough times when nothing seems to be happening.October 9, 2012 at 3:21 pm #76734
I think there’s a lot in what you say, belmurru. However, I remember reading the first issue of Liber Lucis in the early 1970s, and having the impression that here was someone with a body of work upon which they had spent some time. It’s my opinion that prior to Liber Lucis Amado had been working for several years developing his work, attracting a core of students, etc. When I met some of them in 1973, I had the impression of a tight-knit group some of whom had been his students for several years.
I don’t think that these people were with him because they thought he was Aleister Crowley’s son, but because they thought that his work was interesting and that he could help them progress in the direction in which they wanted to progress. In fact, there aren’t many people who would “follow” someone because that person said that he was Crowley’s son. On the contrary, they would be more interested in assessing the competence of that person to offer them guidance, which they would do by observing him, listening to what he had to say, generally assessing him as a person and as a potential teacher.
In my own case, when Amado first came to prominence, I was agnostic about his claims to paternity, not having the information to know one way or the other. Well aware of the controversy that his claims aroused at the time, I tended towards scepticism, but wasn’t particularly bothered either way. The first time I met him, I thought him an impressive character; there was no resembance to Crowley that I could see. When meeting Amado for the second time, I was making plans to live on a kibbutz in Israel, and explained to him why I thought that necessary. He advised me not to go, but to join his commune; this advice I considered, but decided against, moving to the kibbutz in early 1974, but continuing to practise some of the exercises from Liber Lucis. I did write again from Israel, but Amado replied quite reasonably that, having rejected his advice, there was little point in further contact.
So yes, the claims about paternity would have added to the allure for some, but would not have been a decisive factor.October 9, 2012 at 4:42 pm #76735"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:Is it YOUR contention, then, that the majority of Crowley’s students do (should) not accept one of his most important claims? I mean, Crowley’s stories are rather wild too, aren’t they?
My answer is similar to belmurru’s. I think that the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be Crowley’s “students” (both back in the day and today) or who “practice his system” at the very least implicitly think it’s possible or likely for these claims to be true and, in what I think are the majority of cases, really do accept his claims at more or less face value.
But a significant difference between Crowley and Mike Walker is that Crowley’s claims are of the *unfalsifiable, can’t-ever-really-totally-prove-them-false* variety (or, at least, we can’t prove them false with what little evidence we have). Walker’s claims are of the demonstrably false variety, to anyone who cared to look. Since the OP has demonstrated that a person *can* easily dispute Walker’s claims simply by doing a little legwork, I was expressing surprise that anyone was taken in by these claims.
In response, Michael was claiming that pretty much none of his students accepted Walker’s claims, which I would also find surprising.October 9, 2012 at 9:19 pm #76736"Los" wrote:In response, Michael was claiming that pretty much none of his students accepted Walker’s claims, which I would also find surprising.
I’m sorry not to have made myself clear to you, Los.
Your first post in this thread seemed to imply that anybody who was a student of Amado was there because they believed that he was Aleister Crowley’s son, and were therefore ipso facto taken in by him. My point, developed over several posts, was that a potential student asseses a potential teacher in terms of what he or she thinks the teacher has to give that might help them, rather than who that teacher says was their father.
This is hardly the same as claiming that “pretty much none of his students accepted Walker’s claims”.October 9, 2012 at 9:35 pm #76737"MichaelStaley" wrote:Your first post in this thread seemed to imply that anybody who was a student of Amado was there because they believed that he was Aleister Crowley’s son, and were therefore ipso facto taken in by him.
I thought I was pretty clear when I clarified, “Well, this Amado character apparently had ‘students,’ and they probably did accept his claims.” Emphasis added.
At no point did I say — or even imply — that his students decided to become his students because of his claims. I merely commented on the probability of his students accepting said claims. I still think it’s very likely that his students accepted his claims, in the same way that I think most students of Crowley accept Crowley’s claims about what happened during the Cairo Working.October 10, 2012 at 12:26 am #76738
Interesting topics AND people arguing?!? LAShTAL returns to form!October 10, 2012 at 3:39 am #76739
I concede, Los, that I misapprehended your assumption.October 10, 2012 at 8:52 pm #76740
Wonderful work on this, Mal. Just one post here so far – but what a post!October 10, 2012 at 8:55 pm #76741
Yes, an impressive amount of geneological information.October 17, 2012 at 9:12 pm #76742
Amado (1931-2010) setting up several ‘Occult Communes’ between 1962 and 2003, and in 2009 going to live in the one remaining commune in Burgundy, France, resembles AC (1875-1947), as Aleister Crowley set up his own commune in Italy. But also as Aleister Crowley at the end of his life in 1946, wanted to found a new Thelemic commune in the south of England, closer to London than Cornwall, maybe by buying the house where he lived his last years, and to eventually transfer this commune abroad to some warmer climate in Europe. Later on in 1946, Aleister Crowley suggested setting up such a commune in “a country house with a farm attached, within, say, forty miles of London.” Aleister Crowley thought of “The Green Lion” as a suitable name of this commune, “because in alchemy the stage succeeding “The BlackCrow’s Skull” i so called.”
Source: Page 23, 24, 25, 36 and 37 in the 1958 edition of The Magic of Aleister Crowley, by John Symonds.December 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm #76743
Amado was consistent in his claims that he was Aleister’s son. The dates in the book are bogus which is to say they can’t really be used to prove anything either way. I think he believed what he was saying. He wasn’t crazy. His claiming to Aleister’s son might have attracted one or two students but it doesn’t seemed to have gained him anything else. When all’s said and done, it wasn’t a selling point. It may have been he felt he was ‘meant’ to find some of Aleister’s ‘left over’ students – there are references as such in his books. As someone alluded to here, he didn’t seem at all bothered about whether his students believed it or not. He only ever wished for them to be ‘truthful’.
He had personal connections with his students who are widely spread and not really organised in any formal sense. He discouraged club forming though students did tend to form small working groups. Due to the demands of his personal approach students were, by necessity, few. And he seems never to have been very popular. But I think it must say something that his students were from very diverse backgrounds. He did run one or two adds and was on the look out for the odd student but he didn’t prosletyse or use any coercion.
His books were geared differently to the recordings his students received – which in turn, were entirely different to what was offered at the short-lived university. Form and content progressed at quite a gradient – though I think ‘other occultists’ might be surprised to see how far they broke out of ‘occult shackles’. If one were to lay his first published works of the 70’s alongside his latest there is consistency but considerable development in thought. If anyone were to pick up any sort of thread it would also move on. When does something once held true become no longer useful?
In the same way that he claimed Aleister’s canon to be more part of the history of the subject than useful, so too, inevitably, will Amado’s work pass the same way – if one believes it useful at all. There are still one or two books of Amado’s to be published – one just recently – on demons. There may well be one or two more surprises left in store … but then maybe not. If one believed he was affective as a guide or mentor … or a Master … then it had ultimately very little to do with any legacy – or not – of Aleister’s. Some felt it was a nuisance and don’t hold any stock with Aleister. They found access to Amado via other avenues.
It’s highly likely his students were deluded in various ways. That might be the point. People can be very good at believing themselves to be in a better state than they really are. Amado emphasised the importance of entelechy which was worked by a very thorough knowledge of Thelema (Aleister’s was not the first nor the last word on that subject). It was brought into a contemporary contextual light.
In the end, it is irrelevant now whether he was the real Mc Crowley or not. He is dead. Time is limited. No one here can possibly gain anything here from proving or disproving which sperm won the race. “It’s a wise man who knows his father”. Some students will fade into oblivion some students will go onto good things. Just like students everywhere. Rather than waste time raking over the coals of Amado’s grave – a man who doesn’t seem to have caused any harm – perhaps we should all be getting on with ‘climbing the sacred mountain’ as best we can? 😉December 1, 2012 at 11:07 pm #76744
we’ve all thought we were his son at some time. it might be a matter of the planesDecember 2, 2012 at 12:12 am #76745"TreeDragon7" wrote:we’ve all thought we were his son at some time. it might be a matter of the planes
“We” have, have we?December 2, 2012 at 12:40 am #76746
i wont speak for you. but AC has transmitted and impregnated anyone whom has understood his writings. for themselfDecember 2, 2012 at 12:43 am #76747
” on some plane “
- You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.