While certainly a selective collection of quotes, it's good to see all this area laid out like this. Of course, it would be more complete in showing its "patently absurd" nature if it included all the work where Crowley talks about the HGA being an objective and external entity-which was the standard before Crowley's followers turned it into a wonder of spiritism rather than science.
Then, of course, there is this thing with taking Crowley so literally. It's such a dogmatic stance to take. [sarcasm, really]
Actually that view is only espoused once in Magick Without Tears, a treatise especially for beginners. He often laments how little this person seems to understand in the letters themselves. Also at one point in the commentary to AL he says, "In the Cosmos almost any aggregation can think and act as an Ego. For instance, the cells of our bodies are each units, diverse in composition and character, living each a life of its own. Yet we think and act for them, and say 'I'." In this sense we might say he said this once (compared to this other view which he espoused at least 20+ times) to help a "newbie" understand the 'Angel.' Obviously the terms in a "Magick Without Tears" will be focused towards a 'lower grade' than a treatise like "Liber Samekh" which is written for '5=6's but has good commentary on K&C HGA.
Actually that view is only espoused once in Magick Without Tears, a treatise especially for beginners.
Actually, it shows a much later collection of thoughts, simple or not, and a more mature approach to many of his earlier thoughts. But if this is how you wish to dismiss his thoughts, then we might as well dismiss anything we want from his collection in strictly an arbitrary manner.
Quantity is no indication of what is correct. Goes back to that fallacy of a billion Chinese couldn't be wrong.
For instance, the cells of our bodies are each units, diverse in composition and character, living each a life of its own. Yet we think and act for them, and say 'I'."
Sounds great, but, as any biologist would tell you, it's not completely accurate. As I continue to tell you: using Crowley to prove your points only sinks them further into the murk and darkness of error.
Actually, it shows a much later collection of thoughts, simple or not,
It is chronologically later, yes, but one must consider the audience he is addressing. He talks specifically about how you must alter what youre saying according to what 'grade' people are in the intro to Voice of the Silence.
and a more mature approach to many of his earlier thoughts.
That is contestable. I think the idea in MWT that the Angel is an external individual is 'less' mature.
Quantity is no indication of what is correct. Goes back to that fallacy of a billion Chinese couldn't be wrong.
There is a difference between 'quantity' and consistency, first of all. Second of all, the Angel being an external individual would make K&C of HGA contradict pretty much all mystical literature... which the 'other' definition (the one he espouses just about everywhere in different forms) encompasses, synthesizes, and sublimely transcends.
Sounds great, but, as any biologist would tell you, it's not completely accurate. As I continue to tell you: using Crowley
( ... )
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
( ... )
Comments 12
Then, of course, there is this thing with taking Crowley so literally. It's such a dogmatic stance to take. [sarcasm, really]
Reply
Actually that view is only espoused once in Magick Without Tears, a treatise especially for beginners. He often laments how little this person seems to understand in the letters themselves. Also at one point in the commentary to AL he says, "In the Cosmos almost any aggregation can think and act as an Ego. For instance, the cells of our bodies are each units, diverse in composition and character, living each a life of its own. Yet we think and act for them, and say 'I'." In this sense we might say he said this once (compared to this other view which he espoused at least 20+ times) to help a "newbie" understand the 'Angel.' Obviously the terms in a "Magick Without Tears" will be focused towards a 'lower grade' than a treatise like "Liber Samekh" which is written for '5=6's but has good commentary on K&C HGA.
65 & 210,
IAO131
Reply
Actually, it shows a much later collection of thoughts, simple or not, and a more mature approach to many of his earlier thoughts. But if this is how you wish to dismiss his thoughts, then we might as well dismiss anything we want from his collection in strictly an arbitrary manner.
Quantity is no indication of what is correct. Goes back to that fallacy of a billion Chinese couldn't be wrong.
For instance, the cells of our bodies are each units, diverse in composition and character, living each a life of its own. Yet we think and act for them, and say 'I'."
Sounds great, but, as any biologist would tell you, it's not completely accurate. As I continue to tell you: using Crowley to prove your points only sinks them further into the murk and darkness of error.
Reply
Actually, it shows a much later collection of thoughts, simple or not,
It is chronologically later, yes, but one must consider the audience he is addressing. He talks specifically about how you must alter what youre saying according to what 'grade' people are in the intro to Voice of the Silence.
and a more mature approach to many of his earlier thoughts.
That is contestable. I think the idea in MWT that the Angel is an external individual is 'less' mature.
Quantity is no indication of what is correct. Goes back to that fallacy of a billion Chinese couldn't be wrong.
There is a difference between 'quantity' and consistency, first of all. Second of all, the Angel being an external individual would make K&C of HGA contradict pretty much all mystical literature... which the 'other' definition (the one he espouses just about everywhere in different forms) encompasses, synthesizes, and sublimely transcends.
Sounds great, but, as any biologist would tell you, it's not completely accurate. As I continue to tell you: using Crowley ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Thanks!
65 & 210,
IAO131
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
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 ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment