Re: Different grades:anubisluxJanuary 21 2008, 13:42:16 UTC
Finally Kudos in setting anubis_lvx [sic] as far as referencing Crowley goes and in what relation it becomes important. That being said I do wonder though what in particular he takes issue at that quote.
Kudos for blind adherence to the absurd? Okay. If you say so.
The one thing that Crowley is not is consistent. In fact, it is one of the inherent flaws in Crowleyan praxis as I've pointed out too many times to count now. Also, the notion that someone cannot change their mind in a decade is absurd in its own right. There are dozens upon dozens of things that I thought accurate or correct or true a decade ago that I don't today based on further insight, reflection, study, maturity, ad nauseum. And, since I haven't taken issue with any quote at all, I'm not sure what you're referencing above.
Besides, if we are going to take Crowley literally on every subject, then I recommend his introduction to The Goetia as a starting point to understanding the foundation of Crowley's stance on the subjectivity and interiorization of the HGA.
Keep in mind that I can argue either side of this debate. That I have chosen to challenge the current entry's position may or may not be indicative of my own personal position. My continued recommendation-that has a very specific and limited scope of meaning-for serious scholars to move away from using Crowley as proof remains based in the uncontroversial stance that an appeal to authority where there is none is a fallacy beyond mere sophism. Using Crowley to prove Crowley leads to cultism and a self-actualizing system that leads nowhere. Crowley provided a foundation, not a final word.
Re: Different grades:iao131January 21 2008, 16:31:33 UTC
93 anubislux,
What is "the absurd" in this case?
Also, consider the fact that I am perhaps endorsing the view which coheres with my own experiences...
I find that if I reference my own experience and philosophy against Thelema they usually match up and the times where they seemingly arent consistent are very few. I have no problem finding consistency in Crowley's works - I managed to write how Liber AL was ahead of its time and is still psychologicall valid; another of my colleagues is coming out with a book called Principles of Thelema... Omphalos' reply is also quite accurate, I think.
Kudos for blind adherence to the absurd? Okay. If you say so.
The one thing that Crowley is not is consistent. In fact, it is one of the inherent flaws in Crowleyan praxis as I've pointed out too many times to count now. Also, the notion that someone cannot change their mind in a decade is absurd in its own right. There are dozens upon dozens of things that I thought accurate or correct or true a decade ago that I don't today based on further insight, reflection, study, maturity, ad nauseum. And, since I haven't taken issue with any quote at all, I'm not sure what you're referencing above.
Besides, if we are going to take Crowley literally on every subject, then I recommend his introduction to The Goetia as a starting point to understanding the foundation of Crowley's stance on the subjectivity and interiorization of the HGA.
Keep in mind that I can argue either side of this debate. That I have chosen to challenge the current entry's position may or may not be indicative of my own personal position. My continued recommendation-that has a very specific and limited scope of meaning-for serious scholars to move away from using Crowley as proof remains based in the uncontroversial stance that an appeal to authority where there is none is a fallacy beyond mere sophism. Using Crowley to prove Crowley leads to cultism and a self-actualizing system that leads nowhere. Crowley provided a foundation, not a final word.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
What is "the absurd" in this case?
Also, consider the fact that I am perhaps endorsing the view which coheres with my own experiences...
I find that if I reference my own experience and philosophy against Thelema they usually match up and the times where they seemingly arent consistent are very few. I have no problem finding consistency in Crowley's works - I managed to write how Liber AL was ahead of its time and is still psychologicall valid; another of my colleagues is coming out with a book called Principles of Thelema... Omphalos' reply is also quite accurate, I think.
65 & 210,
IAO131
Reply
Leave a comment