I'm reading his Book of Thoth right now. Sometimes, he makes a lot of sense, when he's not talking about Thelema and instead about philosophy or mythology. Do I just need to learn a bit more about the Kaballah? Or is he truly as esoteric as it seems?
Teeheehee. Crowley was an evil evil sadistic wiseass. I am relatively sure he was onto a whole lot of something, but the problem is that he never could seem to bring himself to out and say something without hiding it under a pile of equally meaningful utter BS. He was mean to all of us. Evil, but at the same time you can't bring yourself to give up on him because he looks at us across the years with that dopey Egyptian hat saying Teeheehee. I know something you don't know fuckahs! Dharharhar!
SHUT UP ALEISTER! Just tell us man! Why must you hide everything?
BECAUSE! If he just came out and told you what he knew you wouldn't really grasp it as much. If you aren't sifting through his metaphysical hargon-jargon it would be less fun and just another cheap book on Wicca and/or magick. Have you read The Book of the Law yet? THAT is fun And Book of Lies to.
Crowley is basically taking you on a loopy loop trip to get you off the idea that magic is some esoteric froofy thing. It is direct experience and no one knows that better for yourself than you.
As for Crowley being evil and sadistic, I doubt it seriously and sillily. Many of his supposed thelemic students are, but they don't get the joke.
Quote from: St. Hugh, KSCCrowley is basically taking you on a loopy loop trip to get you off the idea that magic is some esoteric froofy thing. It is direct experience and no one knows that better for yourself than you.
As for Crowley being evil and sadistic, I doubt it seriously and sillily. Many of his supposed thelemic students are, but they don't get the joke.
aye, there a couple good parts in the book of breaks(lies), where he prettymuch says itstraight out, but, most people who are serious about magic don't get it. :roll:
Quote from: horabQuote from: St. Hugh, KSCCrowley is basically taking you on a loopy loop trip to get you off the idea that magic is some esoteric froofy thing. It is direct experience and no one knows that better for yourself than you.
As for Crowley being evil and sadistic, I doubt it seriously and sillily. Many of his supposed thelemic students are, but they don't get the joke.
aye, there a couple good parts in the book of breaks(lies), where he prettymuch says itstraight out, but, most people who are serious about magic don't get it. :roll:
Ahh,now theres the problem.Magick is something you should never be
serious about if you want to have any luck understanding Magick.Thelamites can be as humourless( and assholes) as LaVeyite satanists.Both forget that Crowley was a nortorius practical joker,and LaVey(who I can't stand) was a carny, a grifter, and a pimp.
Quote from: Rev.Verthaine
Ahh,now theres the problem.Magick is something you should never be serious about if you want to have any luck understanding Magick.Thelamites can be as humourless( and assholes) as LaVeyite satanists.Both forget that Crowley was a nortorius practical joker,and LaVey(who I can't stand) was a carny, a grifter, and a pimp.
I agree. And what I hate most at LaVey is that he didn't discover anything new. He wrote of himself (for example in Satanic Witch) as some pope of black religion or something. What new did he bring into pholisophy or religion? Nothing... Just compilation of ideas such as Crowley's.
By the way I nominate "Satanic Witch" for the worst and most sensless book ever wrote...
Quote from: WeselinaQuote from: Rev.Verthaine
Ahh,now theres the problem.Magick is something you should never be serious about if you want to have any luck understanding Magick.Thelamites can be as humourless( and assholes) as LaVeyite satanists.Both forget that Crowley was a nortorius practical joker,and LaVey(who I can't stand) was a carny, a grifter, and a pimp.
I agree. And what I hate most at LaVey is that he didn't discover anything new. He wrote of himself (for example in Satanic Witch) as some pope of black religion or something. What new did he bring into pholisophy or religion? Nothing... Just compilation of ideas such as Crowley's.
By the way I nominate "Satanic Witch" for the worst and most sensless book ever wrote...
True that. But there are some funny things he says in that book. Or maybe it's the Devil's Notebook. I can't tell his writings apart. LaVey wishes he could have been a Crowley.
Quote from: Rev.VerthaineQuote from: horabQuote from: St. Hugh, KSCCrowley is basically taking you on a loopy loop trip to get you off the idea that magic is some esoteric froofy thing. It is direct experience and no one knows that better for yourself than you.
As for Crowley being evil and sadistic, I doubt it seriously and sillily. Many of his supposed thelemic students are, but they don't get the joke.
aye, there a couple good parts in the book of breaks(lies), where he prettymuch says itstraight out, but, most people who are serious about magic don't get it. :roll:
Ahh,now theres the problem.Magick is something you should never be serious about if you want to have any luck understanding Magick.Thelamites can be as humourless( and assholes) as LaVeyite satanists.Both forget that Crowley was a nortorius practical joker,and LaVey(who I can't stand) was a carny, a grifter, and a pimp.
LaVey was like L Ron Hubbard, he wanted an army of followers to suck his dick with a minimum of effort.
Quote from: St. Trollax, ODDQuote from: Rev.VerthaineQuote from: horabQuote from: St. Hugh, KSCCrowley is basically taking you on a loopy loop trip to get you off the idea that magic is some esoteric froofy thing. It is direct experience and no one knows that better for yourself than you.
As for Crowley being evil and sadistic, I doubt it seriously and sillily. Many of his supposed thelemic students are, but they don't get the joke.
aye, there a couple good parts in the book of breaks(lies), where he prettymuch says itstraight out, but, most people who are serious about magic don't get it. :roll:
Ahh,now theres the problem.Magick is something you should never be serious about if you want to have any luck understanding Magick.Thelamites can be as humourless( and assholes) as LaVeyite satanists.Both forget that Crowley was a nortorius practical joker,and LaVey(who I can't stand) was a carny, a grifter, and a pimp.
LaVey was like L Ron Hubbard, he wanted an army of followers to suck his dick with a minimum of effort.
Yeah. But then he got tired of that shit. You should read some of his later writings about that.
aaah, come on, let's finish with La Vey cause he's not even worth our effort...
Have you read Atlantis by Crowley? If not, you shoud really- no his philosophy, no thelema, just his view on mythology and origin of Lost Continent. Worth reading!
Ha! I'm proud of myself- I have been to London and I bought myself Book of Law with Crowley's manuscript. Now I can read pure original version :)
Quote from: Weselinaaaah, come on, let's finish with La Vey cause he's not even worth our effort...
Have you read Atlantis by Crowley? If not, you shoud really- no his philosophy, no thelema, just his view on mythology and origin of Lost Continent. Worth reading!
Ha! I'm proud of myself- I have been to London and I bought myself Book of Law with Crowley's manuscript. Now I can read pure original version :)
I agree with you on LaVey.
Crowley was much better. I like the Book of Lies, but I am currently pouring over the book of Thoth, and some of his other material. It reminds me of Tibetan Vajrayana actually.
Ive noticed most people who are too serious about anything never get the real meaning. least thats some of what i got from Breaks.
i don't think that learning kaballah will make much of his ramble-jamble make more sense. but it's not a bad idea learning the kaballah, i think.
if you wanted a direction to go twards understanding crowley.. perhaps look into the golden dawn and oto.. perhaps some of their other authors are less obtuse.
kim
Understanding Crowley is like understanding Eris. Smoke a lot of pot, drink some Auyahuasca, maybe a trip or two with Lucy and BAM! it will all make sense.
Crowley seemed to have figured out the basics of Magic, almost all of the Western Occult groups up to that point had figured out a metaphor that followed the ideas of magical work, with some success. Crowley, by trying every form of magic and esoteric idea he could get his hands own, eventually broke down most of the metaphoric walls surrounding what
people call magic.
Off of his work, people like Peter Carrol advanced (in Liber Null and Psychonaut) the ideas of Chaos Magic. In a nutshell:
Magic = Will + Altered State of Consciousness + Imagination
These are the things that Crowley truly focused on, his drug usage was specifically for consciousness alteration (and having fun), his sex magic was for consciousness alteration (and having fun), his meditations/yoga/High Ritual all placed him in an altered state of consciousness, in which, with the potencey of Will and the power of Imagination, created changes in reality, which of course, one might consider to be magic.
Read 23 Skidoo and think about what Crowley is telling Initiates.
What I find funny is how any people take him for a prophet or a saint or something.Crowley promoted himself so well that everyone bought into his weird ass notions.But I do love his work because he's mindFucking you and because of the hype you try to add meaning to his none sense.
actually crowley mindfucks no one but himself, and those who are foolish enough to consider his words for more than retarded foolishness for more than a moment.
http://tornasunder.sensibilium.com/text now contains some of his works and some extra bits.
\
tehy don't seem to want toopen after sp2 is installed so if anyon e could reformat them in a mroe up to date file format, it would be greatly appreciated.
edit: fixing link. :P
http://tornasunder.sensibilium.com/text/bookoflies.doc
http://tornasunder.sensibilium.com/text/bookofthelaw.doc
http://tornasunder.sensibilium.com/text/magickintheoryandinpractice.doc
http://tornasunder.sensibilium.com/text/magicwithouttears.doc
Quote from: sakredchaoi don't think that learning kaballah will make much of his ramble-jamble make more sense.
I dunno... If you at least have a passing knowledge of the Tree of Life, a lot of "the Book of Lies" gets more interesting, at least-- AC used it as one of the structures he built the book around, so you can add another level of puns/jakery/meaning/anti-meaning to it all.
If nothing else, it'll be easier to see the synchro-net if you start learning Kabbalah.
I think anyone who wants a better understanding of Crowley would be well advised to read EYE IN THE TRIANGLE by Israel Regardie. Although Regardie was not taught directly by Crowley he was his secretary for several years. They had a terrible break and Regardie is definitely not a Thelemite but his compassion for what Crowley was trying to do helps dispell much of the B.S. around Crowley. Also Crowley did nothing to Discourage rumors of Satanism and black magic about himself. He seems to have viewed any press coverage as good Press coverage.
Not to mention, being thought of as a satanist and pure evil weeded out the people who listen to what THEY say.
And who wants a disciple who doesn't question everything they are told?
Personally, I think that people who are serious about magic, and who read such authors as Crowley and LeVey, should go buy a really juicy romance novel, instead.
Then maybe put on a nice shirt and go to a social event and actually meet members of the opposite sex instead of casting spells to attract them.
Personally, I think that spells and incantations are for pusses, and that if the "witch" would give him/herself a good talking to, throw off that painfully grotesque "mystique" they're trying (and failing) to cultivate, then they'd find themselves much happier and much more stable people.
While I respect your opinion Era, I gotta say that it sounds like you've never really read Crowley's stuff, 'specially if your'e lumping him n' LaVey together.
Crowley's techniques were essentially Asian meditative and Tantric practices blended with Occidental scientific method. Stories about him casting spells are usually exaggerated, and his incantations could more honestly be thought of as identifying and isolating Jungian archetypes.
Not to say that a fluff piece of fiction isn't a nice break every once in a while.
But lumping all of Crowley (and his advocates) into a negative stereotype is a bit unfair. I know many suave, attractive, and intelligent Thelemites.
LMNO
Not wanting to start a fight.
You're right, LMNO - I've only attempted to read Crowley. I put the book down again very quickly. I have very little patience for such as that. I'm not lumping him in with just LeVey, I'm lumping Crowley in with every other mystic that's ever written a book.
I much prefer Eliade. Or even Campbell, although I think he's a poor second to Eliade. Which only goes to show that I prefer anthropology to mysticism, but oddly enough, I've learned more about being Wiccan, and about magic, from Eliade than I ever have from any metaphysical author I've ever discovered.
*makes a silly face*
And you'd maybe be surprised at what authors I have read, although I might, possibly, if I feel really generous, deign to admit that I might have soured on the subject after reading Huson's opus of the absurd, "Mastering Witchcraft."
(Although I have to admit I have found a few interesting sex tips over the years that I never heard of on HBO's Real Sex series.)
No, it's the magic that I sneer at, and I can count on one hand the people I've met who are both magicians, and worthwhile people. And it was not the magic that made them cool, it was the force of their own personalities, their own love of life.
I'm also willing to bet that, out of all the people on this board who are truly attractive, cool, and also practice magic, that it is not the magic that makes them attractive, and never was.
From Chaos to Wicca, most "magicians" I've met are blustering swaggerers who are clad in a thin illusion of personal power that entirely disappears once you get the nifty jewelry and clothes off of them to reveal a naked, shivering, and scrawny little pretender with precious little self-esteem and practically no common sense.
Me, if I'm going to be an arrogant bitch, I'm by damned going to be an arrogant bitch on my own two feet, without resorting to outre mystics and archaic secret orders like I think I'm Willow Rosenburg, or something. I've never found a place in my life for magic outside of a religious ritual - I don't understand the need for it or any practical usage for it. On the other hand, I have seen the destructive consequences that can happen when people start dicking around with magic instead of simply believing that they are already worthwhile people, and carrying on with their lives from a position of inner strength.
The most intelligent, attractive man I've ever met, the one who introduced me to Eliade, never makes any pretense to knowledge that he doesn't actually have. He thinks he's just a guy; I think he could easily turn me into his willing slave.
Don't get jealous, Rog
Mmmmmmmmmmm willing slave
Oh, yeah.
Of the purring-like-a-cat-in-heat, curled-up-around-his-feet, absolutely-no-self-control variety of willing slave.
... yeah.
Ivebeen in THAT state for months now
and no one wants me as their slave either
whatta sad sad state of affairs
or lack of affairs anyway
Quote from: EraPassingI much prefer Eliade.
OMG! I got to read Eliade's
The Sacred and the Profane my freshman year of college. And while I had to sell back nearly all my textbooks *and* sell off my violin for money during my college career, I kept that book. Still have it. :D
You dig anthropology, eh? You might actually be able to read
Drawing Down the Moon, then - I've always been intimidated by its size.
Quote from: DJRubberduckyQuote from: EraPassingI much prefer Eliade.
OMG! I got to read Eliade's The Sacred and the Profane my freshman year of college. And while I had to sell back nearly all my textbooks *and* sell off my violin for money during my college career, I kept that book. Still have it. :D
You dig anthropology, eh? You might actually be able to read Drawing Down the Moon, then - I've always been intimidated by its size.
I am a humble disciple of Eliade - yes, I have to agree that
The Sacred and the Profane, my Bible, should never leave the hands of the person who is wise enough to buy it. He's way better than Campbell, imo.
I like anthropology texts more than mysticism texts mostly because an anthropologist has an outsider's skepticism and is less inclined to blow smoke up the reader's ass to make themselves seem like an all-wise guru.
I really like the fact that you said "
got to read it" instead of "
had to read it". That's how I felt about it, too!
I've read Drawing Down the Moon, actually - it was the book that took my spiritual virginity. A lot of people sneer at her, but I think that her viewpoint was a lot more humble than many authors who write as though they're the Absolutely Bestest High Priest/ess of Wicca, and DDTM is an awesome place to start for any person who comes to Wicca sideways, like I did, with a whopping dose of suspicion.
Unfortunately, I loaned my copy of DDTM to a person who called herself my friend, and never got it back, so now I have to eventually pick up another one, which sucks, because the guy who'd owned that particular copy before me had left really kick-ass notes in the margins.
If I may be so bold Era, what Crowley book was it that you only read a few pages of before casting judgement on his work as a whole?
'Cuz he has a few different writing styles, depending on who he's trying to put one over on.
Damned if I remember the name of the book - I didn't actually read it all the way through. I just remember thinking to myself, "Look, I've already suffered through Huson. No man has anything to teach that's worth going through all this shit." And so I put it down and didn't pick it up again.
I'm pretty sure it was one of those books where Crowley deliberately used a lot of obfuscation, though.
You know what made it worse, though? The guy who owned the book and was selling it had the gall to act as though putting it down was a wise decision, not because it was worthless, but because he didn't think I had the experience and the wit to understand it.
I fucking HATE men like that - the ones who take one look at me and assume I've got more hair than brain.
Well, seeing as how I can't tell how much hair you have, but noticing the size of your brain, I predict you coif resembles Christina Aguilera's in the "Lady Marmalade" video.
If you're not sure how to take that, it was a compliment.
Seems like you're equating Crowley with the assholes who pretend to know what he was about. Pity.
Well, thank you! *beams at LMNO*
But, actually, I'm equating Crowley with every other pouf who publishes a book on anything mystic.
Another thing I hate, besides condescending men, is what I call the Scholar's Arrogance - that habit that scholars have that assuming that just because they happen to have an opinion that matches the opinion of someone who happened to have published a book, then both they and that author must be right. You know the conversations I'm talking about, right?
Pouf #1: Well, So-and-So said that "Blah blah blah..."
Pouf #2: Ah, but according to So-and-Other, "Blah blah blah blah!" So, of course that means blah blah blah...
Pouf #1: Well, if you're going to take it like that, then what did you think when you read So-and-So's "Blah blah and blah?", where he said "Blah blah blah blah"? Anyone with any sense must recognize that he's absolutely right! His opinion absolutely proves this theory I'm expanding on!
Era: You're both silly poufs, did you know that?
Well hey, let's not be gender biased here. How about condescending women? I often feel like smacking Starhawk in the teeth.
Quote from: LMNOWell hey, let's not be gender biased here. How about condescending women? I often feel like smacking Starhawk in the teeth.
Actually, I was refering to the man who made assumptions about my brain capacity with my "condescending" comment, but you're absolutely right about condescending women authors, too.
I mean, c'mon. That whole "I deign to teach others now because I have reached a state of enlightenment that, perhaps, after centuries of devotion to the study of MY teachings, you may one day reach, too" schtick - it's BS.
I mean, yeah, I understand the idea of making your students work for their education unless you're planning on handing them a pre-chewed set of ideas and beliefs, but the Mysteries aren't really as mysterious as everyone keeps making them out to be. From Wicca to what I've explored of the rest of the magical traditions - it's all easier than the "experts" are making it out to be. That's probably the root of my impatience with mysticism - it's just not that damn hard. People need to get over themselves, and quit pretending that it is.
mysticism does not equal magick.
while it may be on eof the more appropriate terms in western culture, mysticism is more like indyan aesceticism than anything out of egypt.
especially since magick is generally ritualistic and involving the manipulation of one's environment through arcane means, whereas mysticism has nothign to do with any of that. there may be soem small elements of ritual in mysticism, but probaly less than regionally surrounding isms(liek buddhism, hinudism, zenism). and definitely less than anything magick, which is even more aritcifial(smoke and mirrors) than the ritual of those isms other mentioned,.
If you can't get BLAH
then first get B
then L
then AH
AH is the elixir of the seventh angel of the seventh nipple
of the mighty sky queen.
So then
at last
Get BLAH!
Though not a Subgenius,
If you can't get SLACK
then first get S
then L
then ACK
ACK is the elixir of the seventh Puff of the seventh Pipe
of the mighty BOB.
So then
at last
Get SLACK!
Quote from: LMNOThough not a Subgenius,
If you can't get SLACK
then first get S
then L
then ACK
ACK is the elixir of the seventh Puff of the seventh Pipe
of the mighty BOB.
So then
at last
Get SLACK!
HAW HAW! WRONG AGAIN!
If ya can't get slack, get the perfect cheeseburger.
adn failign that there's beer in teh fridge. help yourself.