From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Unity
Date: 28 Aug 1992 14:44:29 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: galaxy.think.com

In article <Gerald_Del_Campo.008n@sorinc.UUCP>, Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo) writes:
|> 
|> As to the intellect:  any decision originating from the intellect must be
|> based on facts.  I felt your statement about Crowley was not based on
|> facts.  There is no need to insult one another.  It will only make us both
|> look like children.

My statements on Crowley are my own opinion based on reading his works and 
biographies of the man.  I'll admit never to have met him but these seem to
be facts enough for those who laud the man so I suppose they are equally
facts for those who don't.  I'm not sure where you thought I was being 
personally insulting.  None was intended.

|> If you cannot perceive the jewels contained in Crowley's works this does
|> not make him warped, or incorrect.  He simply did not strike a harmonious
|> chord with you... just as Xtianity with me.

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'm beginning to think you didn't bother to read my post.  I
don't expect many here to agree with me but let's not twist things out of
proportion.

|> 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?

|>  C> They have taken "Crowley's truth" and filtered out a good portion of
|> the
|>  C> Crowley to get at the truth.
|> 
|> Here you insinuate that Crowley never published the Truth.  He may have
|> "hid" it from the profane... he might have toyed with the gullible; but he
|> published as much of the truth as can be communicated.

Nothing of the sort.  What I said quite plainly was that other authors simply
removed Crowley's colorations and obfuscations and presented the same subject
matter more directly.  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".

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.
 
|> You said it!  So what is the point in arguing over something as objective? 
|> If I insulted in my posts I apologize, as my intention was not to flame.  I
|> just wanted to show the other side of the coin.

ditto.

|> Well, when debating whether Regardie was better than Crowley I always picke
|> Crowley  ;)

And I pick Regardie ;-)  (or Nowicki, Fortune, Butler, Knight, or Case)
So perhaps we can only agree that we disagree.

--Christopher
Newsgroups: alt.magick