From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Unity
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<17le4dINN1rt@early-bird.think.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:43:17 GMT


In article <17le4dINN1rt@early-bird.think.com> cward@Think.COM (Christopher) 
writes:

>   In article <Gerald_Del_Campo.008n@sorinc.UUCP>, 
>   Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo) writes:

>  I didn't say I couldn't perceive the jewels contained in Crowley's works 
> and such an arguement is a fairly cheap shot.  In fact, I said there was 
> some merit to his works but other authors do a much better job of presenting
> it in print. 

I both agree and disagree with this statement.  If crowley has an overwhelming
fault, it is that he tends to assume that his reader is functioning, at least
to some extent, on higher levels than is often the case. those with experience
of these higher levels will know what I mean when I say that this is fairly
common. in this sense, regardie, fortune et al do a better job of explaining
these complex ideas to the neophyte. However, neither regardie's nor fortune's
work in and of themselves function as an initiatory system (as do, say,
both MinT&P and the 'Illuminatus' trilogy). 
> |> This is an opinion that many would not share with you.  If you say 
> |>"Crowley  sucks" do you expect everyone to agree with you?

>  No. So?

well, in actual point of fact, he did. and fairly often too. I refer the
interested reader to his new york diaries (published, I believe, under the
title of 'The Magickal Record of the Beast 666'or some such).

>                            I've found when authors or teachers gloss over or
> obfuscate a subject it is because they are rock solid on it themselves.  In
> the occult world they hide behind the "hidden from the profane" excuse that
> reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes.  In the academic field, they use
> catch phrases like "this proof left as an exercise to the student" or the
> best one yet "intuitively obvious".

I have rarely seen crowley use the 'hidden from the profane' bit. when he
does, he is usually referring to level of initiation (which, note, does 
*not* refer to how much dues you have paid or whether you can use the
title 'grand panjandrum' and wear a funny hat at meetings).

> In the accounts of Crowley I have read, the general consensus is that he 
>"stole" his knowledge from a wide number of sources and schools and published
>them as his own original work, or at least without references to their 
>origin. It appears as though his books were quite scandelous in that he 
>published   information that he had been given confidentially.

this specifically refers to the publication of the G.'.D.'. material in
'The Equinox'. The issue here was this: crowley felt that, upon receipt
of Liber Al, he had contacted the Secret Chiefs of the order and hence
was the rightful head of the order and entitled to do what he wished with
the material. I believe (though I don't know for sure, doubt aanyone does,
and would be unsurprised if I was wrong) tht this was the ultmate reason
that he and S. L. Mathers broke up (after some years of very close friend-
ship and association), ie tht mathers did not accept this. I will note
that in the resulting court case, crowley won (which if you believe (as I
don't necessarily (or usually, anyway)) in such creatures aaas 'secret 
chiefs' would seem to imply that these beings of praeterhuman power
and knowledge had arranged matters to their satisfaction, or at least had
not arranged mtters to mathers' satisfaction).


josh
Newsgroups: alt.magick